kOo^ 



v^-^ -^ct- 



,H v 



■^^ 



^%^ 



/• ,.X^^ 









■->. .^ 



o 



<:.- <^ 





■/- 




^/ 


c- 






^ ^^. 






^'^^ 


•S^' 




^ -^^ 


^^. 




0^' 






A- 











■:s^ . 



'V- V 
.0 o. 






-^^ :(• -< 






■:,. ,#■ 



^^ a 



■N Ci 



-.N' -r- 



^OQ^ 



•■J- V- 



o 



O- V 



A' 



"^^ ^ 



x.^ -U 



oX 



FEDERAL EDITION 
Limited to 1000 signed and numbered sets. 



The Collector's Federal Edition of the Writings of 
Abraham Lincoln is limited to six hundred signed 
and numbered sets, of which this is 

Number ^JbJ^^^^y^ 

We guarantee that nj limited, numbered edition, 
other than the Federal, shall be printed from these 
plates. 

The written number must correspond with the 
perforated number at the top of this page. 








3\tr>txvi\ (f i^itton 



The Writings of 

Abraham Lincoln 



Edited by 

Arthur Brooks Lapsley 

With an Introduction by 

Theodore Roosevelt 

Together with 

The Essay on Lincoln, by Carl Schurz 

The Address on Lincoln, by Joseph H. Choate 

and The Life of Lincoln, by Noah Brooks 



Volume Two 
1843-1858 



G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York and London 
Zhz Iknlcftecbocher press 

1905 



t 



Q ;' 



/f, 



O Ci) 



LIBRARY cv CONGRESS 
Two Copies Received 

DEC 26 1905 

Cnoyrisht Entry 
•^LASS CX XXc. No 

COPY B. 



Copyright, 1905 

BY 

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 



Ube "ftnicftcrbocfter iprcea, IRew Borft 



CONTENTS 

1843 

To Joshua F. Speed, May i8th 3 

1844 
To Gen. J. J. Hardin, May 21st 4 

1845 

To Gen. J. J. Hardin, January 19th .... 5 

To Williams, March ist 8 

To Williamson Durley, October 3d . . , . 9 

1846 

To Dr. Robert Boal, January 7 th . . . .11 

To John Bennett, January 15th ..... 13 

To N. J. Rockwell, January 21st 13 

To James Berdan, April 26th ..... 14 

To James Berdan, May 7th 15 

Verses Written by Lincoln after a Visit to His Old Home 

in Indiana (a Fragment) . . . . -15 

Verses Written by Lincoln concerning a Schoolfellow 

who became Insane (a Fragment) . . . .16 
To Joshua F. Speed, October 2 2d 17 

1847 

To William H. Herndon, December 5th . . .18 

To William H. Herndon, December 13th . . • 19 

VOL. II. 

Ill 



IV 



Contents 



Resolutions in the House of Representatives, December 

22d ......... 20 

1848 

Remarks in the House of Representatives, January 5th . 22 
To William H. Herndon, January 8th . . . .26 
Speech in the House of Representatives, January 12th 27 
Report in the House of Representatives, January 19th . 45 
To William H. Herndon, January 19th . . '47 

To William H. Herndon, February ist . . -47 

To William H. Herndon, February 2d . . . . 50 
To William H. Herndon, February 15th ... 50 
Report in the House of Representatives, March 9th . 52 
Report in the House of Representatives, March 9th . 57 
Remarks in the House of Representatives, March 29th . 58 
To Archibald Williams, April 30th . . . .60 

Remarks in the House of Representatives, May nth . 61 

To Rev. J. M. Peck, May 21st 65 

To Archibald Williams, June 12th .... 66 

Speech in the House of Representatives, June 20th . 67 
To WilHam H. Herndon, June 2 2d . . . .84 

Remarks in the House of Representatives, June 28th . 88 

Fragment, July 89 

To Wilham H. Herndon, Jtdy loth .... 89 
Speech in the House of Representatives, July 27th . 91 
Speech DeHvered at Worcester, Mass., September 12th . 115 
To Thomas Lincoln, December 24th . . . .120 

1849 

Bill to Abohsh Slavery in the District of Columbia, 

January i6th 121 

Remarks in the House of Representatives, February 

13th . . . . . . . . .124 



Contents 



V 



To the Secretary of the Treasury, March 9th 

To the Secretary of State, March loth 

To the Secretary of the Interior, April 7th . 

To the Secretary of the Interior, April 7th . 

To the Postmaster-General, April 7th . 

To the Secretary of the Interior, April 7th . 

To Thompson, April 25th . 

To the Secretary of the Interior, May loth . 

To Joseph Gillespie, May 19th .... 

To E. Embree, May 25th 

Improved Method of Lifting Vessels over Shoals . 

To the Secretary of the Interior, June 3d 

To William H. Herndon, June 5 th 

To Joseph Gillespie, July 13th 

Resolutions of Sympathy with the Cause of Hungarian 

Freedom, September [12th ?] 
To Dr. William Fithian, September 14th 
To , Esq., December isth .... 



127 
128 
129 
130 

131 
132 
132 

135 
136 

137 
137 
138 
139 

141 
142 
143 



1850 

Resolutions on the Death of Judge Nathaniel Pope, 

June 3d 144 

Fragment: Notes for Law Lecture, July ist . . 145 



1851 

To John D. Johnston, January 2d 
To Charles Hoyt, January nth 
To John D. Johnston, January 12th 
To John D. Johnston, August 31st 
To John D. Johnston, November 4th 
To Lincoln's Mother, November 4th 



147 
149 
150 
151 
151 
153 



vi Contents 

PAGE 

To John D. Johnston, November 9th . . . -153 
To John D. Johnston, November 25th . . . .154 

1852 

Eulogy on Henry Clay, July i6th . , . .155 

Opinion on the Illinois Election Law, November ist 

(Lincoln and others) 174 

1853 
To Joshua R. Stanford, May 12th . . . .175 

1854 

To Hon. J. M. Palmer, September 7th . . . .176 

Speech at Peoria, Illinois, in Reply to Senator Douglas, 

October i6th . . . . . . -177 

To Charles Hoyt, November loth . . . -237 

To Joseph Gillespie, December ist .... 238 

To Justice McLean, December 6th . . . .239 

1855 

To E. B. Washbume, February 9th . . . .239 
To Sanford, Porter, and Striker, March loth , .241 

To Joshua F. Speed, August 24th . . . .242 

1856 

Speech Delivered before the First Republican State 

Convention of IlHnois, May 29th .... 247 

To W. C. Whitney, July 9th 276 

To WilHam Grimes, July 12th . . . . .276 
Fragment of Speech at Galena, Illinois, in the Fremont 

Campaign, August [ist ?] 277 

To John Bennett, August 4th 279 

To Jesse K. Dubois, August 19th 280 



Contents 

1S58 

To Harrison Maltby, September 8th .... 
To Dr. Robert Boal, September 14th .... 
To Henry O 'Conner, September 14th .... 
Fragment of a Speech at a RepubHcan Banquet in 
Chicago, December loth ..... 

To Dr. Robert Boal, December 25th . 

1857 

To John E. Rosette, February loth 

Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 26th 

To William Grimes, August . 

Argument in the Rock Island Bridge Case, September 

22d and 23d ..... 
To Jesse K. Dubois, December 21st 
To Joseph Gillespie, January 19th 
To Joseph Gillespie, February 7th 
To Edward G. Miner, February 19th 
To W. H. Lamon, June nth 
Brief Autobiography, June [isth ?] 



VI 1 

PAGE 

281 
282 
283 

283 
286 



287 
287 

308 

320 
320 
321 
321 
323 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

Abraham Lincoln . . . Frontispiece ' 

Front a painting by Fleniming made in 1856. 
{Courtesy of W. C. Crane, Esq.) 

Caleb B. Smith ...... 62 

From a tnezzotint. 

Abraham Lincoln . . . . . .100 

First stage of a steel engraving. 
{Courtesy of W. C. Crane, Esq.) 

Henry Clay ....... ij6 

From a lithograph. 

Thomas H. Benton ...... 254 

Frotn a steel engraving. 

Millard Fillmore ...... 272 

From a steel engraving. 

John C. Fremont ...... 280 

From a photograph by Handy 

The Lincoln Home at Springfield, Illinois . jo8 

From a steel engraving. 
{Courtesy of W. C. Crane, Esq.) 



THE WRITINGS OF 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 

I 843-1 858 



vol.. II — I 



THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 



TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

Springfield, May i8, 1843. 

Dear Speed: — Yours of the gth instant is duly 
received, which I do not meet as a "bore," but as a 
most welcome visitor. I will answer the business 
part of it first. . . . 

In relation to our Congress matter here, you were 
right in supposing I would support the nominee. 
Neither Baker nor I, however, is the man, but 
Hardin, so far as I can judge from present appear- 
ances. We shall have no split or trouble about the 
matter; all will be harmony. In relation to the 
"coming events" about which Butler wrote you, I 
had not heard one word before I got your letter; 
but I have so much confidence in the judgment of a 
Butler on such a subject that I incline to think there 
may be some reality in it. What day does Butler 
appoint ? By the way, how do "events " of the same 
sort come on in your famil}^? Are you possessing 
houses and lands, and oxen and asses, and men-ser- 
vants and maid-servants, and begetting sons and 
daughters ? We are not keeping house, but boarding 
at the Globe Tavern, which is very well kept now by 
a widow lady of the name of Beck. Our room (the 

3 



4 The Writings of 

same that Dr. Wallace occupied there) and boarding 
only costs us four dollars a week. Ann Todd was 
married something more than a year since to a 
fellow by the name of Campbell, and who, Mary says, 
is pretty much of a "dunce," though he has a little 
money and property. They live in Boonville, 
Missouri, and have not been heard from lately enough 
for me to say anything about her health. I reckon 
it will scarcely be in our power to visit Kentucky 
this year. Besides poverty and the necessity of 
attending to business, those "coming events," I 
suspect, would be somewhat in the way. I most 
heartily wish you and your Fanny would not fail to 
come. Just let us know the time, and we will have a 
room provided for you at our house, and all be merry 
together for a while. Be sure to give my respects to 
your mother and family; assure her that if ever I 
come near her, I will not fail to call and see her. 
Mary joins in sending love to your Fanny and you. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO GEN. J. J. HARDIN. 

Springfield, May 21, 1844. 

Dear Hardin: 

Knowing that you have correspondents enough, 
I have forborne to trouble you heretofore; and I 
now only do so to get you to set a matter right which 
has got wrong with one of our best friends. It 
is old Uncle Thomas Campbell of Spring Creek — 



Abraham Lincoln 5 

(Berlin P. O.). He has received several documents 
from you, and he says they are old newspapers and 
documents, having no sort of interest in them. He 
is, therefore, getting a strong impression that you 
treat him with disrespect. This, I know, is a mis- 
taken impression; and you must correct it. The 
way, I leave to yourself. Rob't W. Canfield says 
he would like to have a document or two from you. 
The Locos here are in considerable trouble about 
Van Buren's letter on Texas, and the Virginia electors. 
They are growing sick of the Tariff question; and 
consequently are much confounded at V. B.'s cutting 
them off from the new Texas question. Nearly half 
the leaders swear they won't stand it. Of those are 
Ford, T. Campbell, Ewing, Calhoun and others. 
They don't exactly say they won't vote for V. B., 
but they say he will not be the candidate, and that 
they are for Texas anyhow. 

As ever yours, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO GEN. J. J. HARDIN. 

Springfield, Jany. 19, 1845. 

Dear General: 

I do not wish to join in your proposal of a new 
plan for the selection of a Whig candidate for Con- 
gress because : 

I St. I am entirely satisfied with the old system 
under which you and Baker were successively nomi- 
nated and elected to Congress; and because the 



6 The Writings of 

Whigs of the district are well acquainted with the 
system, and, so far as I know or believe, are well 
satisfied with it. If the old system be thought to be 
vague, as to all the delegates of the county voting the 
same way, or as to instructions to them as to whom 
they are to vote for, or as to filling vacancies, I am 
willing to join in a provision to make these matters 
certain. 

2d. As to your proposals that a poll shall be 
opened in every precinct, and that the whole shall 
take place on the same day, I do not personally 
object. They seem to me to be not unfair; and I 
forbear to join in proposing them only because I 
choose to leave the decision in each county to the 
Whigs of the county, to be made as their own judg- 
ment and convenience may dictate. 

3d. As to your proposed stipulation that all the 
candidates shall remain in their own counties, and 
restrain their friends in the same — it seems to me 
that on reflection you will see the fact of your hav- 
ing been in Congress has, in various ways, so spread 
your name in the district as to give you a decided 
advantage in such a stipulation. I appreciate your 
desire to keep down excitement ; and I promise you 
to "keep cool" under all circumstances. 

4th. I have already said I am satisfied with the 
old system under which such good men have tri- 
umphed and that I desire no departure from its 
principles. But if there must be a departure from it, 
I shall insist upon a more accurate and just appor- 
tionment of delegates, or representative votes, to 
the constituent body, than exists by the old, and 



Abraham Lincoln 7 

which yoa propose to retain in your new plan. If 
we take the entire population of the counties as 
shown by the late census, we shall see by the old 
plan, and by your proposed new plan, — 

Morgan County, with a population 16,541, 

has but 8 votes 

While Sangamon with 18,697 — 2156 greater 

—has but 8 " 

So Scott with 6553 has 4 " 

While Tazewell with 7615 — 1062 greater — 

has but 4 " 

So Mason with 3135 has i vote 

While Logan with 3907, 772 greater, has but i 

And so on in a less degree the matter runs through 
all the counties, being not only wrong in principle, 
but the advantage of it being all manifestly in your 
favor with one slight exception, in the comparison 
of two counties not here mentioned. 

Again, if we take the Whig votes of the counties as 
shown by the late Presidential election as a basis, the 
thing is still worse. 

Take a comparison of the same six counties: 

Morgan with her 1443 Whig votes has 8 votes 

Sangamon with her 1837, 394 greater, only 

has 8 " 

Mason with her 255 has i vote 

Logan with her 310, 55 greater, has only. ... i *' 

Scott with her 670 has 4 votes 

Tazewell with her loi i, 341 greater, has only 4 " 

It seems to me most obvious that the old svstem 



The Writings of 



fe- 



needs adjustment in nothing so much as in this; 
and still, by your proposal, no notice is taken of 
it. I have always been in the habit of acceding 
to almost any proposal that a friend would make 
and I am truly sorry that I cannot in this. I per- 
haps ought to mention that some friends at different 
places are endeavoring to secure the honor of the 
sitting of the convention at their towns respectively, 
and I fear that they would not feel much com- 
plimented if we shall make a bargain that it should 
sit nowhere. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO WILLIAMS. 

Springfield, March i, 1845. 

Friend Williams: 

The Supreme Court adjourned this morning for the 
term. Your cases of Reinhardt vs. Schuyler, Bunce 
vs. Schuyler, Dickhut vs. Dunell, and Sullivan vs. 
Andrews are continued. Hinman vs. Pope I wrote 
you concerning some time ago. McNutt et al. vs. 
Bean and Thompson is reversed and remanded. 

Fitzpatrick vs. Brady et al. is reversed and re- 
manded with leave to complainant to amend his bill 
so as to show the real consideration given for the 
land. 

Bunce against Graves the court confirmed, where- 
fore, in accordance with your directions, I moved to 
have the case remanded to enable you to take a new 



Abraham Lincoln 9 

trial in the court below. The court allowed the 
motion; of which I am glad, and I guess you are. 
This, I believe, is all as to court business. The 
canal men have got their measure through the 
Legislature pretty much or quite in the shape they 
desired. Nothing else now. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO WILLIAMSON DURLEY. 

Springfield, October 3, 1845. 

When I saw you at home, it was agreed that I 
should write to you and your brother Madison. 
Until I then saw you I was not aware of your being 
what is generally called an abolitionist, or, as you 
call yourself, a Liberty man, though I well knew 
there were many such in your country. 

I was glad to hear that you intended to attempt 
to bring about, at the next election in Putnam, a 
union of the Whigs proper and such of the Liberty 
men as are Whigs in principle on all questions save 
only that of slavery. So far as I can perceive, by 
such union neither party need yield anything on the 
point in difference between them. If the Whig 
abolitionists of New York had voted with us last 
fall, Mr. Clay would now be President, Whig princi- 
ples in the ascendant, and Texas not annexed; 
whereas, by the division, all that either had at stake 
in the contest was lost. And, indeed, it was ex- 
tremely probable, beforehand, that such would be 
the result. As I always understood, the Liberty 



lo The Writings of 

men deprecated the annexation of Texas extremely; 
and this being so, why they should refuse to cast 
their votes [so] as to prevent it, even to me seemed 
wonderful. What was their process of reasoning, 
I can only judge from what a single one of them told 
me. It was this: " We are not to do evil that good 
may come." This general proposition is doubtless 
correct; but did it apply? If by your votes you 
could have prevented the extension, etc., of slavery 
would it not have been good, and not evil, so to have 
used your votes, even though it involved the casting 
of them for a slaveholder? By the fruit the tree is 
to be known. An evil tree cannot bring forth good 
fruit. If the fruit of electing Mr. Clay would have 
been to prevent the extension of slavery, could the 
act of electing have been evil ? 

But I will not argue further. I perhaps ought to 
say that individually I never was much interested 
in the Texas question. I never could see much good 
to come of annexation, inasmuch as they were 
already a free republican people on our own model. 
On the other hand, I never could very clearly see 
how the annexation would augment the evil of 
slavery. It always seemed to me that slaves would 
be taken there in about equal numbers, with or 
without annexation. And if more were taken 
because of annexation, still there would be just so 
many the fewer left where they were taken from. 
It is possibly true, to some extent, that, with 
annexation, some slaves may be sent to Texas and 
continued in slavery that otherwise might have 
been liberated. To whatever extent this may be 



Abraham Lincoln ii 

true, I think annexation an evil. I hold it to be 
a paramount duty of us in the free States, due to 
the Union of the States, and perhaps to liberty 
itself (paradox though it may seem), to let the 
slavery of the other States alone; while, on the 
other hand, I hold it to be equally clear that we 
should never knowingly lend ourselves, directly or 
indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a 
natural death — -to find new places for it to live in 
when it can no longer exist in the old. Of course I 
am not now considering what would be our duty in 
cases of insurrection among the slaves. To recur 
to the Texas question, I understand the Liberty 
men to have viewed annexation as a much greater 
evil than ever I did; and I would like to convince 
you, if I could, that they could have prevented it, 
if they had chosen. I intend this letter for you and 
Madison together; and if 3^ou and he or either shall 
think fit to drop me a line, I shall be pleased. 

Yours with respect, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO DR. ROBERT BOAL. 

Springfield, January 7, 1846. 

Dr. Robert Boal, Lacon, 111. 

Dear Doctor: — Since I saw you last fall, I have 
often thought of writing to you, as it was then under- 
stood I would, but, on reflection, I have alwa^^s found 
that I had nothing new to tell you. All has happened 



12 The Writines of 



t5' 



as I then told you I expected it would — Baker's de- 
clining, Hardin's taking the track, and so on. 

If Hardin and I stood precisely equal, if neither 
of us had been to Congress, or if we both had, it 
would only accord with what I have always done, for 
the sake of peace, to give way to him ; and I expect 
I should do it. That I can voluntarily postpone 
my pretensions, when they are no more than equal 
to those to which they are postponed, you have 
yourself seen. But to yield to Hardin under present 
circumstances seems to me as nothing else than 
yielding to one who would gladly sacrifice me 
altogether. This I would rather not submit to. 
That Hardin is talented, energetic, usually generous 
and magnanimous, I have before this affirmed to 
you and do not deny. You know that my only 
argument is that "turn about is fair play." This 
he, practically at least, denies. 

If it would not be taxing you too much, I wish you 
would write me, telling the aspect of things in your 
country, or rather your district; and also, send the 
names of some of your Whig neighbors, to whom I 
might, with propriety, write. Unless I can get 
some one to do this, Hardin, with his old franking 
list, will have the advantage of me. My reliance 
for a fair shake (and I want nothing more) in your 
country is chiefly on you, because of your position 
and standing, and because I am acquainted with so 
few others. Let me hear from you soon. 

Yours truly, 
A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 13 

TO JOHN BENNETT. 

Springfield, Jan. 15, 1846. 

John Bennett. 
Friend John: 

Nathan Dresser is here, and speaks as though 
the contest between Hardin and me is to be doubtful 
in Menard County. I know he is candid and this 
alarms me some. I asked him to tell me the names 
of the men that were going strong for Hardin, he 
said Morris was about as strong as any — now tell 
me, is Morris going it openly? You remember you 
wrote me that he would be neutral. Nathan also 
said that some man, whom he could not remember, 
had said lately that Menard County was going to 
decide the contest and that made the contest very 
doubtful. Do you know who that was ? Don't fail 
to write me instantly on receiving this, telling me 
all — ^particularly the names of those who are going 
strong against me. Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO N. J. ROCKWELL. 

Springfield, January 21, 1846. 

Dear Sir: — ^You perhaps know that General 
Hardin and I have a contest for the Whig nomination 
for Congress for this district. 

He has had a turn and my argument is "turn 
about is fair play." 

I shall be pleased if this strikes you as a sufficient 
argument. Yours truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



14 The Writings of 

TO JAMES BERDAN. 

Springfield, April 26, 1846. 

Dear Sir: — I thank you for the promptness with 
which you answered my letter from Bloomington. 
I also thank you for the frankness with which you 
comment upon a certain part of my letter; because 
that comment affords me an opportunity of trying 
to express myself better than I did before, seeing, 
as I do, that in that part of my letter, you have not 
understood me as I intended to be understood. 

In speaking of the "dissatisfaction" of men who 
yet mean to do no wrong, etc., I mean no special 
application of what I said to the Whigs of Morgan, 
or of Morgan & Scott. I only had in my mind 
the fact that previous to General Hardin's with- 
drawal some of his friends and some of mine had 
become a little warm; and I felt, and meant to say, 
that for them now to meet face to face and converse 
together was the best way to efface any remnant 
of unpleasant feeling, if any such existed. 

I did not suppose that General Hardin's friends 
were in any greater need of having their feelings 
corrected than mine were. Since I saw you at 
Jacksonville, I have had no more suspicion of the 
Whigs of Morgan than of those of any other part of 
the district. I write this only to try to remove any 
impression that I distrust you and the other Whigs 
of your country. 

Yours truly, 
A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 15 

TO JAMES BERDAN. 

Springfield, May 7, 1846. 

Dear Sir : — It is a matter of high moral obligation, 
if not of necessity, for me to attend the Coles and 
Edwards courts. I have some cases in both of them, 
in which the parties have my promise, and are 
depending upon me. The court commences in Coles 
on the second Monday, and in Edgar on the third. 
Your court in Morgan commences on the fourth 
Monday; and it is my purpose to be with you then, 
and make a speech. I mention the Coles and Edgar 
courts in order that if I should not reach Jackson- 
ville at the time named you may understand the 
reason why. I do not, however, think there is 
much danger of my being detained; as I shall go 
with a purpose not to be, and consequently shall 
engage in no new cases that might delay me. 

Yours truly, 
A. Lincoln. 



VERSES WRITTEN BY LINCOLN AFTER A VISIT TO HIS OLD 
HOME IN INDIANA— (A FRAGMENT). 

Near twenty years have passed away ^ 

Since here I bid farewell 
To woods and fields, and scenes of play, 

And playmates loved so well. 

« In December, 1847, when Lincoln was stumping for Clay, he 
crossed into Indiana and revisited his old home. He writes: "That 
part of the country is within itself as impoetical as any spot on earth; 
but still seeing it and its objects and inhabitants aroused feelings in 
me which were certainly poetry; though whether my expression of 
these feelings is poetry, is quite another question." 



1 6 The Writings of 

Where many were, but few remain 

Of old familiar things ; 
But seeing them to mind again 

The lost and absent brings. 

The friends I left that parting day, 
How changed, as time has sped! 

Young childhood grown, strong manhood gray, 
And half of all are dead. 

I hear the loved survivors tell 

How naught from death could save, 

Till every sound appears a knell, 
And every spot a grave. 

I range the fields with pensive tread, 

And pace the hollow rooms, 
And feel (companion of the dead) 

I 'm living in the tombs. 



VERSES WRITTEN BY LINCOLN CONCERNING A SCHOOL- 
FELLOW WHO BECAME INSANE— (A FRAGMENT). 

And when at length the drear and long 

Time soothed thy fiercer woes. 
How plaintively thy mournful song 

Upon the still night rose ! 

I 've heard it oft as if I dreamed, 

Far distant, sweet and lone ; 
The funeral dirge it ever seemed 

Of reason dead and gone. 

Air held her breath ; trees with the spell 

Seemed sorrowing angels round, 
Whose swelling tears in dewdrops fell 

Upon the listening ground. 



Abraham Lincoln 17 

But this is past, and naught remains 

That raised thee o'er the brute ; 
Thy piercing shrieks and soothing strains 

Are Hke, forever mute. 

Now fare thee well ! More thou the cause 

Than subject now of woe. 
All mental pangs by time's kind laws 

Hast lost the power to know. 

O Death! thou awe-inspiring prince 

That keepst the world in fear, 
Why dost thou tear more blest ones hence, 

And leave him lingering here ? 



TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

Springfield, October 22, 1846. 

Dear Speed: — . . . You, no doubt, assign the 
suspension of our correspondence to the true philo- 
sophic cause; though it must be confessed by both 
of us that this is rather a cold reason for allowing 
a friendship such as ours to die out by degrees. I 
propose now that, upon receipt of this, you shall be 
considered in my debt, and under obligations to pay 
soon, and that neither shall remain long in arrears 
hereafter. Are you agreed? 

Being elected to Congress, though I am very grate- 
ful to our friends for having done it, has not pleased 
me as much as I expected. 

We have another boy, born the loth of March. 
He is very much such a child as Bob was at his age, 
rather of a longer order. Bob is "short and low," 
and I expect always will be. He talks very plainly, 
— almost as plainly as anybody. He is quite smart 



VOL. II. — 2. 



The Writings of 



&^ 



enough. I sometimes fear that he is one of the little 
rare-ripe sort that are smarter at about five than ever 
after. He has a great deal of that sort of mischief 
that is the offspring of such animal spirits. Since 
I began this letter, a messenger came to tell me Bob 
was lost; but by the time I reached the house his 
mother had found him and had him whipped, and 
by now, very likely, he is run away again. Mary has 
read your letter, and wishes to be remembered to Mrs. 
Speed and you, in which I most sincerely join her. 

As ever yours, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, December 5, 1847. 

Dear William : — You may remember that about 
a year ago a man by the name of Wilson (James 
Wilson, I think) paid us twenty dollars as an advance 
fee to attend to a case in the Supreme Court for him, 
against a Mr. Campbell, the record of which case was 
in the hands of Mr. Dixon of St. Louis, who never 
furnished it to us. When I was at Bloomington last 
fall I met a friend of Wilson, who mentioned the 
subject to me, and induced me to write to Wilson, 
telling him I would leave the ten dollars with you 
which had been left with me to pay for making 
abstracts in the case, so that the case may go on this 
winter; but I came away, and forgot to do it. What 
I want now is to send you the money, to be used 
accordingly, if any one comes on to start the case, or 
to be retained by you if no one does. 



Abraham Lincoln 19 

There is nothing of consequence new here. Con- 
gress is to organize to-morrow. Last night we 
held a Whig caucus for the House, and nominated 
Winthrop of Massachusetts for speaker, Sargent of 
Pennsylvania for sergeant-at-arms, Homer of New 
Jersey door-keeper, and McCormick of District of 
Columbia postmaster. The Whig majority in the 
House is so small that, together with some little 
dissatisfaction, [it] leaves it doubtful whether we will 
elect them all. 

This paper is too thick to fold, which is the reason 
I send only a half -sheet. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, December 13, 1847. 

Dear William: — ^Your letter, advising me of the 
receipt of our fee in the bank case, is just received, 
and I don't expect to hear another as good a piece 
of news from Springfield while I am away. I am 
under no obligations to the bank; and I therefore 
wish you to buy bank certificates, and pa}^ my debt 
there, so as to pay it with the least money possible. 
I would as soon you should buy them of Mr. Ridgely, 
or any other person at the bank, as of any one else, 
provided you can get them as cheaply. I suppose, 
after the bank debt shall be paid, there will be some 
money left, out of which I would like to have you 
pay Lavely and Stout twenty dollars, and Priest and 



20 The Writings of 

somebody (oil-makers) ten dollars, for materials 
got for house-painting. If there shall still be any 
left, keep it till you see or hear from me. 

I shall begin sending documents so soon as I can 
get them. I wrote you yesterday about a "Congres- 
sional Globe." As you are all so anxious for me to 
distinguish myself, I have concluded to do so before 
long. 

Yours truly, 
A. Lincoln. 



RESOLUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OP 
REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 2 2, 1847. 

Whereas, The President of the United States, in 
his message of May ii, 1846, has declared that "the 
Mexican Government not only refused to receive him 
[the envoy of the United States], or to listen to his 
propositions, but, after a long-continued series of 
menaces, has at last invaded our territory and shed 
the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil ' ' ; 

And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, 
that "we had ample cause of war against Mexico 
long before the breaking out of hostilities ; but even 
then we forbore to take redress into our own hands 
until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invad- 
ing our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood 
of our citizens"; 

And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847, 
that ' ' the Mexican Government refused even to hear 
the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of 



Abraham Lincoln 21 

peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under 
wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two 
countries in war, by invading the territory of the 
State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding 
the blood of our citizens on our own soil ' ' ; 

And whereas, This House is desirous to obtain a 
full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish 
whether the particular spot on which the blood of 
our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time 
our own soil: therefore, 

Resolved, By the House of Representatives, that 
the President of the United States be respectfully 
requested to inform this House — 

First. Whether the spot on which the blood of 
our citizens was shed, as in his message declared, 
was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least 
after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution. 

Second. Whether that spot is or is not within the 
territory which was wrested from Spain by the 
revolutionary government of Mexico. 

Third. Whether that spot is or is not within a 
settlement of people, which settlement has existed 
ever since long before the Texas revolution, and 
until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the 
United States army. 

Fourth. Whether that settlement is or is not 
isolated from any and all other settlements by the 
Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and 
by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east. 

Fifth. Whether the people of that settlement, or 
a majority of them, or any of them, have ever sub- 
mitted themselves to the government or laws of 



22 The Writings of 

Texas or of the United States, by consent or by com- 
pulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at 
elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or 
having process served upon them, or in any other 
way. 

Sixth. Whether the people of that settlement did 
or did not flee from the approach of the United 
States army, leaving unprotected their homes and 
their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in 
the message stated; and whether the first blood, so 
shed, was or was not shed within the inclosure of one 
of the people who had thus fled from it. 

Seventh. Whether our citizens, whose blood was 
shed, as in his message declared, were or were not, at 
that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that 
settlement by the military order of the President, 
through the Secretary of War. 

Eighth. Whether the military force of the United 
States was or was not so sent into that settlement 
after General Taylor had more than once intimated 
to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such 
movement was necessary to the defence or protection 
of Texas. 



REMARKS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRE- 
SENTATIVES, JANUARY 5, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln said he had made an effort, some few 
da3^s since, to obtain the floor in relation to this 
measure [resolution to direct Postmaster-General 
to make arrangements with railroad for carrying the 



Abraham Lincoln 23 

mails — in Committee of the Whole], but had failed. 
One of the objects he had then had in view was now 
in a great measure superseded by what had fallen 
from the gentleman from Virginia who had just 
taken his seat. He begged to assure his friends on 
the other side of the House that no assault whatever 
was meant upon the Postmaster-General, and he was 
glad that what the gentleman had now said modified 
to a great extent the impression which might have 
been created by the language he had used on a pre- 
vious occasion. He wanted to state to gentlemen 
who might have entertained such impressions, that 
the Committee on the Post-ofifice was composed of 
five Whigs and four Democrats, and their report was 
understood as sustaining, not impugning, the posi- 
tion taken by the Postmaster-General. That report 
had met with the approbation of all the Whigs, and 
of all the Democrats also, with the exception of one, 
and he wanted to go even further than this. [Inti- 
mation was informally given Mr. Lincoln that it was 
not in order to mention on the floor what had taken 
place in committee.] He then observed that if he 
had been out of order in what he had said he took it 
all back so far as he could. He had no desire, he 
could assure gentlemen, ever to be out of order — 
though he never could keep long in order. 

Mr. Lincoln went on to observe that he differed in 
opinion, in the present case, from his honorable 
friend from Richmond [Mr. Botts]. That gentle- 
man had begun his remarks by saying that if all 
prepossessions in this matter could be removed out of 
the way, but little difficulty would be experienced in 



24 The Writings of 

coming to an agreement. Now, he could assure that 
gentleman that he had himself begun the examina- 
tion of the subject with prepossessions all in his 
favor. He had long and often heard of him, and, 
from what he had heard, was prepossessed in his 
favor. Of the Postmaster-General he had also 
heard, but had no prepossessions in his favor, 
though certainly none of an opposite kind. He 
differed, however, with that gentleman in politics, 
while in this respect he agreed with the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Botts], whom he wished to oblige 
whenever it was in his power. That gentleman had 
referred to the report made to the House by the 
Postmaster-General, and had intimated an appre- 
hension that gentlemen would be disposed to rely 
on that report alone, and derive their views of the 
case from that document alone. Now it so happened 
that a pamphlet had been slipped into his [Mr. 
Lincoln's] hand before he read the report of the 
Postmaster-General; so that, even in this, he had 
begun with prepossessions in favor of the gentleman 
from Virginia. 

As to the report, he had but one remark to make: 
he had carefully examined it, and he did not under- 
stand that there was any dispute as to the facts 
therein stated — the dispute, if he understood it, 
was confined altogether to the inferences to be drawn 
from those facts. It was a difference not about facts, 
but about conclusions. The facts were not disputed. 
If he was right in this, he supposed the House might 
assume the facts to be as they were stated, and 
thence proceed to draw their own conclusions. 



Abraham Lincoln 25 

The gentleman had said that the Postmaster- 
General had got into a personal squabble with the 
railroad company. Of this Mr. Lincoln knew no- 
thing, nor did he need or desire to know anything, 
because it had nothing whatever to do with a just 
conclusion from the premises. But the gentleman 
had gone on to ask whether so great a grievance as 
the present detention of the Southern mail ought 
not to be remedied. Mr. Lincoln would assure the 
gentleman that if there was a proper way of doing 
it, no man was more anxious than he that it should 
be done. The report made by the committee had 
been intended to yield much for the sake of removing 
that grievance. That the grievance was very great 
there was no dispute in any quarter. He supposed 
that the statements made by the gentleman from 
Virginia to show this were all entirely correct in 
point of fact. He did suppose that the interruptions 
of regular intercourse, and all the other incon- 
veniences growing out of it, were all as that gentle- 
man had stated them to be ; and certainly, if redress 
could be rendered, it was proper it should be ren- 
dered as soon as possible. The gentleman said that 
in order to effect this no new legislative action was 
needed; all that was necessary was that the Post- 
master-General should be required to do what the 
law, as it stood, authorized and required him to do. 

We come then, said Mr. Lincoln, to the law. Now 
the Postmaster-General says he cannot give to this 
company more than two hundred and thirty-seven 
dollars and fifty cents per railroad mile of trans- 
portation, and twelve and a half per cent, less for 



26 The Writings of 

transportation by steamboats. He considers himself 
as restricted by law to this amount; and he says, 
further, that he would not give more if he could, 
because in his apprehension it would not be fair 
and just. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, January 8, 1848. 

Dear William: — ^Your letter of December 27 was 
received a day or two ago. I am much obliged to 
you for the trouble you have taken, and promise to 
take in my little business there. As to speechmak- 
ing, by way of getting the hang of the House I made 
a little speech two or three days ago on a post-office 
question of no general interest. I find speaking here 
and elsewhere about the same thing. I was about 
as badly scared, and no worse, as I am when I speak 
in court. I expect to make one within a week or 
two, in which I hope to succeed well enough to wish 
you to see it. 

It is very pleasant to learn from you that there are 
some who desire that I should be re-elected. I most 
heartily thank them for their kind partiality; and I 
can say, as Mr, Clay said of the annexation of Texas, 
that "personally I would not object " to a re-election, 
although I thought at the time, and still think, it 
would be quite as well for me to return to the law 
at the end of a single term. I made the declaration 
that I would not be a candidate again, more from a 
wish to deal fairly with others, to keep peace among 
our friends, and to keep the district from going to the 



Abraham Lincoln 27 

enemy, than for any cause personal to mysel-f; so 
that, if it should so happen that nobody else wishes 
to be elected, I could not refuse the people the right 
of sending me again. But to enter myself as a com- 
petitor of others, or to authorize any one so to enter 
me, is what my word and honor forbid. 

I got some letters intimating a probability of so 
much difficulty amongst our friends as to lose us the 
district; but I remember such letters were written 
to Baker when my own case was under consideration, 
and I trust there is no more ground for such appre- 
hension now than there was then. Remember I 
am always glad to receive a letter from you. 

Most truly your friend, 
A. Lincoln. 



SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OP REPRE- 
SENTATIVES, JANUARY 12, 1848. 

Mr. Chairman : — Some if not all the gentlemen on 
the other side of the House who have addressed the 
committee within the last two days have spoken 
rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood 
them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago 
declaring that the war with Mexico was unneces- 
sarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the 
President. I admit that such a vote should not be 
given in mere party wantonness, and that the one 
given is justly censurable if it have no other or 
better foundation. I am one of those who joined in 
that vote ; and I did so under my best impression of 



28 The Writings of 

the truth of the case. How I got this impression, 
and how it may possibly be remedied, I will now 
try to show. When the war began, it was my 
opinion that all those who because of knowing too 
little, or because of knowing too much, could not 
conscientiously approve the conduct of the Presi- 
dent in the beginning of it should nevertheless, as 
good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that 
point, at least till the war should be ended. Some 
leading Democrats, including ex - President Van 
Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand 
them; and I adhered to it and acted upon it, until 
since I took my seat here ; and I think I should still 
adhere to it were it not that the President and his 
friends will not allow it to be so. Besides the con- 
tinual effort of the President to argue every silent 
vote given for supplies into an indorsement of the 
justice and wisdom of his conduct; besides that 
singularly candid paragraph in his late message in 
which he tells us that Congress with great unanimity 
had declared that "by the act of the Republic of 
Mexico, a state of war exists between that govern- 
ment and the United States," when the same journals 
that informed him of this also informed him that 
when that declaration stood disconnected from the 
question of supplies sixty-seven in the House, and 
not fourteen merely, voted against it; besides this 
open attempt to prove by telling the truth what he 
could not prove by telling the whole truth — demand- 
ing of all who will not submit to be misrepresented, 
in justice to themselves, to speak out, — ^besides all 
this, one of my colleagues [Mr. Richardson] at a 



Abraham Lincoln 29 

very early day in the session brought in a set of 
resolutions expressly indorsing the original justice of 
the war on the part of the President. Upon these 
resolutions when they shall be put on their passage 
I shall be compelled to vote; so that I cannot be 
silent if I would. Seeing this, I went about pre- 
paring myself to give the vote understanding^ when 
it should come. I carefully examined the Presi- 
dent's message, to ascertain what he himself had 
said and proved upon the point. The result of this 
examination was to make the impression that, 
taking for true all the President states as facts, he 
falls far short of proving his justification; and that 
the President would have gone further with his proof 
if it had not been for the small matter that the truth 
would not permit him. Under the impression thus 
made I gave the vote before mentioned. I propose 
now to give concisely the process of the examination 
I made, and how I reached the conclusion I did. The 
President, in his first war message of May, 1846, 
declares that the soil was ours on which hostilities 
were commenced by Mexico, and he repeats that 
declaration almost in the same language in each suc- 
cessive annual message, thus showing that he deems 
that point a highly essential one. In the importance 
of that point I entirely agree with the President. 
To my judgment it is the very point upon which he 
should be justified, or condemned. In his message 
of December, 1846, it seems to have occurred to him, 
as is certainly true, that title — ownership — to soil 
or anything else is not a simple fact, but is a conclu- 
sion following on one or more simple facts ; and that 



30 The Writings of 

it was incumbent upon him to present the facts 
from which he concluded the soil was ours on which 
the first blood of the war was shed. 

Accordingly, a little below the middle of page 
twelve in the message last referred to he enters 
upon that task; forming an issue and introducing 
testimony, extending the whole to a little below the 
middle of page fourteen. Now, I propose to try to 
show that the whole of this — issue and evidence — is 
from beginning to end the sheerest deception. The 
issue, as he presents it, is in these words : "But there 
are those who, conceding all this to be true, assume 
the ground that the true western boundary of Texas 
is the Nueces, instead of the Rio Grande; and that, 
therefore, in marching our army to the east bank of 
the latter river, we passed the Texas line and invaded 
the territory of Mexico." Now this issue is made 
up of two affirmatives and no negative. The main 
deception of it is that it assumes as true that one river 
or the other is necessarily the boundary ; and cheats 
the superficial thinker entirely out of the idea that 
possibly the boundary is somewhere between the 
two, and not actually at either. A further decep- 
tion is that it will let in evidence which a true issue 
would exclude. A true issue made by the President 
would be about as follows: "I say the soil was ours, 
on which the first blood was shed; there are those 
who say it was not." 

I now proceed to examine the President's evidence 
as applicable to such an issue. When that evidence is 
analyzed, it is all included in the following pro- 
positions : 



Abraham Lincoln 31 

(i) That the Rio Grande was the western bound- 
ary of Louisiana as we purchased it of France in 
1803. 

(2) That the RepubHc of Texas always claimed 
the Rio Grande as her eastern boundary. 

(3) That by various acts she had claimed it on 
paper. 

(4) That Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas 
recognized the Rio Grande as her boundary. 

(5) That Texas before, and the United States 
after, annexation had exercised jurisdiction beyond 
the Nueces — ^between the two rivers. 

(6) That our Congress understood the boundary 
of Texas to extend beyond the Nueces. 

Now for each of these in its turn. His first item 
is that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of 
Louisiana, as we purchased it of France in 1 803 ; 
and seeming to expect this to be disputed, he argues 
over the amount of nearly a page to prove it true, 
at the end of which he lets us know that by the treaty 
of i8ig we sold to Spain the whole country from the 
Rio Grande eastward to the Sabine. Now, admit- 
ting for the present that the Rio Grande was the 
boundary of Louisiana, what under heaven had 
that to do with the present boundary between us 
and Mexico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line that 
once divided your land from mine can still be the 
boundary between us after I have sold my land to 
you is to me beyond all comprehension. And how 
any man, with an honest purpose only of proving the 
truth, could ever have thought of introducing such 
a fact to prove such an issue is equally incompre- 



32 The Writings of 

hensible. His next piece of evidence is that "the 
Repubhc of Texas always claimed this river [Rio 
Grande] as her western boundary." That is not 
true, in fact. Texas has claimed it, but she has not 
always claimed it. There is at least one distin- 
guished exception. Her State constitution — the 
republic's most solemn and well-considered act, 
that which may, without impropriety, be called her 
last will and testament, revoking all others — makes 
no such claim. But suppose she had always claimed 
it. Has not Mexico always claimed the contrary? 
So that there is but claim against claim, leaving 
nothing proved until we get back of the claims and 
find which has the better foundation. Though not 
in the order in which the President presents his evi- 
dence, I now consider that class of his statements 
which are in substance nothing more than that Texas 
has, by various acts of her Convention and Congress, 
claimed the Rio Grande as her boundary, on paper. 
I mean here what he says about the fixing of the Rio 
Grande as her boundary in her old constitution (not 
her State constitution) , about forming Congressional 
districts, counties, etc. Now all of this is but naked 
claim; and what I have already said about claims 
is strictly applicable to this. If I should claim your 
land by word of mouth, that certainly would not 
make it mine; and if I were to claim it by a deed- 
which I had made myself, and with which you had 
had nothing to do, the claim would be quite the same 
in substance — or rather, in utter nothingness. I 
next consider the President's statement that Santa 
Anna in his treaty with Texas recognized the Rio 



Abraham Lincoln 33 

Grande as the western boundary of Texas. Besides 
the position so often taken, that Santa Anna while a 
prisoner of war, a captive, could not bind Mexico by a 
treaty, which I deem conclusive — ^besides this, I wish 
to say something in relation to this treaty, so called 
by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man 
would like to be amused by a sight of that little thing 
which the President calls by that big name, he can 
have it by turning to Niks' s Register, vol. 1, p. 336. 
And if any one should suppose that Niles's Register 
is a curious repository of so mighty a document as a 
solemn treaty between nations, I can only say that I 
learned to a tolerable degree of certainty, by inquiry 
at the State Department, that the President himself 
never saw it anywhere else. By the way, I believe I 
should not err if I were to declare that during the 
first ten years of the existence of that document it 
was never by anybody called a treaty — ^that it was 
never so called till the President, in his extremity, 
attempted by so calling it to wring something from 
it in justification of himself in connection with the 
Mexican War. It has none of the distinguishing 
features of a treaty. It does not call itself a treaty. 
Santa Anna does not therein assume to bind Mexico ; 
he assumes only to act as the President-Commander- 
in-Chief of the Mexican army and navy; stipulates 
that the then present hostilities should cease, and 
that he would not himself take up arms, nor influ- 
ence the Mexican people to take up arms, against 
Texas during the existence of the war of independ- 
ence. He did not recognize the independence of 
Texas ; he did not assume to put an end to the war, 

VOL. II. 3. 



34 The Writings of 

but clearly indicated his expectation of its continu- 
ance ; he did not say one word about boundary, and, 
most probably, never thought of it. It is stipu- 
lated therein that the Mexican forces should evacu- 
ate the territory of Texas, passing to the other side 
of the Rio Grande ; and in another article it is stipu- 
lated that, to prevent collisions between the armies, 
the Texas army should not approach nearer than 
within five leagues — of what is not said, but clearly, 
from the object stated, it is of the Rio Grande. Now, 
if this is a treaty recognizing the Rio Grande as the 
boundary of Texas, it contains the singular feature 
of stipulating that Texas shall not go within five 
leagues of her own boundary. 

Next comes the evidence of Texas before annexa- 
tion, and the United States afterwards, exercising 
jurisdiction beyond the Nueces and between the two 
rivers. This actual exercise of jurisdiction is the 
very class or quality of evidence we want. It is 
excellent so far as it goes ; but does it go far enough ? 
He tells us it went beyond the Nueces, but he does 
not tell us it went to the Rio Grande. He tells us 
jurisdiction was exercised between the two rivers, 
but he does not tell us it was exercised over all the 
territory between them. Some simple-minded peo- 
ple think it is possible to cross one river and go 
beyond it without going all the way to the next, that 
jurisdiction may be exercised between two rivers 
without covering all the country between them. I 
know a man, not very unlike myself, who exercises 
jurisdiction over a piece of land between the Wabash 
and the Mississippi ; and yet so far is this from being 



Abraham Lincoln 35 

all there is between those rivers that it is just one 
hundred and fifty-two feet long by fifty feet wide, 
and no part of it much within a hundred miles of 
either. He has a neighbor between him and the 
Mississippi — ^that is, just across the street, in that 
direction — ^whom I am sure he could neither persuade 
nor force to give up his habitation ; but which never- 
theless he could certainly annex, if it were to be done 
by merely standing on his own side of the street and 
claiming it, or even sitting down and writing a deed 
for it. 

But next the President tells us the Congress of the 
United States understood the State of Texas they 
admitted into the Union to extend beyond the 
Nueces. Well, I suppose they did. I certainly so 
understood it. But how far beyond? That Con- 
gress did not understand it to extend clear to the Rio 
Grande is quite certain, by the fact of their joint 
resolutions for admission expressly leaving all ques- 
tions of boundary to future adjustment. And it 
may be added that Texas herself is proven to have 
had the same understanding of it that our Congress 
had, by the fact of the exact conformity of her new 
constitution to those resolutions. 

I am now through the whole of the President's 
evidence; and it is a singular fact that if any one 
should declare the President sent the army into the 
midst of a settlement of Mexican people who had 
never submitted, by consent or by force, to the 
authority of Texas or of the United States, and that 
there and thereby the first blood of the war was shed, 
there is not one word in all the President has said 



36 The Writings of 

which would either admit or deny the declaration. 
This strange omission it does seem to me could not 
have occurred but by design. My way of living 
leads me to be about the courts of justice ; and there 
I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for 
his client's neck in a desperate case, employing every 
artifice to work round, befog, and cover up with 
many words some point arising in the case which he 
dared not admit and yet could not deny. Party 
bias may help to make it appear so, but with all the 
allowance I can make for such bias, it still does ap- 
pear to me that just such, and from just such 
necessity, is the President's struggle in this case. 

Sometime after my colleague [Mr. Richardson] 
introduced the resolutions I have mentioned, I in- 
troduced a preamble, resolution, and interrogations, 
intended to draw the President out, if possible, on 
this hitherto untrodden ground. To show their 
relevancy, I propose to state my understanding of 
the true rule for ascertaining the boundary between 
Texas and Mexico. It is that wherever Texas was 
exercising jurisdiction was hers; and wherever 
Mexico was exercising jurisdiction was hers; and 
that whatever separated the actual exercise of juris- 
diction of the one from that of the other was the true 
boundary between them. If, as is probably true, 
Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western 
bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it 
along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then 
neither river was the boundary : but the uninhabited 
country between the two was. The extent of our 
territory in that region depended not on any treaty- 



Abraham Lincoln 37 

fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) , but 
on revolution. Any people anywhere being inclined 
and having the power have the right to rise up and 
shake off the existing government, and form a new 
one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, 
a most sacred right — a right which we hope and be- 
lieve is to liberate the world. Nor is this right con- 
fined to cases in which the whole people of an existing 
government may choose to exercise it. Any portion 
of such people that can may revolutionize and make 
their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. 
More than this, a majority of any portion of such 
people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, 
intermingled with or near about them, who may 
oppose this movement. Such minority was pre- 
cisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. 
It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines 
or old laws, but to break up both, and make new 
ones. 

As to the country now in question, we bought it 
of France in 1803, and sold it to Spain in 1819, ac- 
cording to the President's statements. After this, 
all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against 
Spain; and still later Texas revolutionized against 
Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her 
resolution by obtaining the actual, willing or un- 
willing, submission of the people, so far the country 
was hers, and no farther. Now, sir, for the purpose 
of obtaining the very best evidence as to whether 
Texas had actually carried her revolution to the 
place where the hostilities of the present war com- 
menced, let the President answer the interrogatories 



38 The Writings of 

I proposed, as before mentioned, or some other simi- 
lar ones. Let him answer fully, fairly, and can- 
didly. Let him answer with facts and not with 
arguments. Let him remember he sits where Wash- 
ington sat, and so remembering, let him answer as 
Washington would answer. As a nation should not, 
and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him 
attempt no evasion — no equivocation. And if, so 
answering, he can show that the soil was ours where 
the first blood of the war was shed, — that it was not 
within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that 
the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil 
authority of Texas or of the United States, and that 
the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, — ^then I 
am with him for his justification. In that case I shall 
be most happy to reverse the vote I gave the other 
day. I have a selfish motive for desiring that the 
President may do this — I expect to gain some votes, 
in connection with the war, which, without his so 
doing, will be of doubtful propriety in my own 
judgment, but which will be free from the doubt if he 
does so. But if he can not or will not do this, — if on 
any pretence or no pretence he shall refuse or omit it 
— ^then I shall be fully convinced of what I more 
than suspect already — ^that he is deeply conscious 
of being in the wrong ; that he feels the blood of this 
war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to heaven 
against him; that originally having some strong 
motive — ^what, I will not stop now to give my 
opinion concerning — to involve the two countries 
in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing 
the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of 



Abraham Lincoln 39 

military glory, — that attractive rainbow that rises in 
showers of blood, that serpent's eye that charms 
to destroy, — ^he plunged into it, and was swept on and 
on till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease 
with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds 
himself he knows not where. How like the half- 
insane mumbling of a fever dream is the whole war 
part of his late message ! At one time telling us that 
Mexico has nothing whatever that we can get but 
territory; at another showing us how we can sup- 
port the war by levying contributions on Mexico. 
At one time urging the national honor, the security 
of the future, the prevention of foreign interference, 
and even the good of Mexico herself as among the 
objects of the war; at another telling us that "to 
reject indemnity, by refusing to accept a cession of 
territory, would be to abandon all our just demands, 
and to wage the war, bearing all its expenses, without 
a purpose or definite object." So then this national 
honor, security of the future, and ever3rthing but 
territorial indemnity may be considered the no-pur- 
poses and indefinite objects of the war! But, having 
it now settled that territorial indemnity is the only 
object, we are urged to seize, by legislation here, all 
that he was content to take a few months ago, and 
the whole province of Lower California to boot, and 
to still carry on the war — ^to take all we are fighting 
for, and still fight on. Again, the President is re- 
solved under all circumstances to have full terri- 
torial indemnity for the expenses of the war; but 
he forgets to tell us how we are to get the excess after 
those expenses shall have surpassed the value of the 



40 The Writings of 

whole of the Mexican territory. So again, he insists 
that the separate national existence of Mexico shall 
be maintained ; but he does not tell us how this can 
be done, after we shall have taken all her territory. 
Lest the questions I have suggested be considered 
speculative merely, let me be indulged a moment in 
trying to show they are not. The war has gone on 
some twenty months; for the expenses of which, 
together with an inconsiderable old score, the Presi- 
dent now claims about one half of the Mexican 
territory, and that by far the better half, so far as 
concerns our ability to make anything out of it. It 
is comparatively uninhabited; so that we could 
establish land-offices in it, and raise some money in 
that way. But the other half is already inhabited, 
as I understand it, tolerably densely for the nature of 
the country, and all its lands, or all that are valuable, 
already appropriated as private property. How then 
are we to make anything out of these lands with 
this encumbrance on them? or how remove the en- 
cumbrance ? I suppose no one would say we should 
kill the people, or drive them out, or make slaves of 
them, or confiscate their property. How, then, can 
we make much out of this part of the territory ? If 
the prosecution of the war has in expenses already 
equalled the better half of the country, how long 
its future prosecution will be in equalling the less 
valuable half is not a speculative, but a practical, 
question, pressing closely upon us. And yet it is a 
question which the President seems never to have 
thought of. As to the mode of terminating the war 
and securing peace, the President is equally wander- 



Abraham Lincoln 41 

ing and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more 
vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital parts of 
the enemy's country; and after apparently talking 
himself tired on this point, the President drops down 
into a half -despairing tone, and tells us that "with 
a people distracted and divided by contending fac- 
tions, and a government subject to constant changes 
by successive revolutions, the continued success of 
our arms may fail to secure a satisfactory peace." 
Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the 
Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own 
leaders, and, trusting in our protestations, to set up a 
government from which we can secure a satisfactory 
peace; telling us that "this may become the only 
mode of obtaining such a peace." But soon he falls 
into doubt of this too ; and then drops back on to 
the already half -abandoned ground of "more vigor- 
ous prosecution." All this shows that the President 
is in nowise satisfied with his own positions. First 
he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into 
it he argues himself out of it, then seizes another and 
goes through the same process, and then, confused 
at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches 
up the old one again, which he has some time be- 
fore cast off. His mind, taxed beyond its power, 
is running hither and thither, like some tortured 
creature on a burning surface, finding no position on 
which it can settle down and be at ease. 

Again, it is a singular omission in this message that 
it nowhere intimates when the President expects 
the war to terminate. At its beginning. General 
Scott was by this same President driven into disfavor 



42 The Writings of 

if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be 
conquered in less than three or four months. But 
now, at the end of about twenty months, during 
which time our arms have given us the most splendid 
successes, every department and every part, land and 
water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, 
doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things 
which it had ever before been thought men could not 
do — after all this, this same President gives a long 
message, without showing us that as to the end he 
himself has even an imaginary conception. As I 
have before said, he knows not where he is. He is 
a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed 
man. God grant he may be able to show there is not 
something about his conscience more painful than 
his mental perplexity. 

The following is a copy of the so-called "treaty" 
referred to in the speech : 

"Articles of Agreement entered into between his 
Excellency David G. Burnet, President of the Re- 
public of Texas, of the one part, and his Excellency 
General Santa Anna, President-General-in-Chief of 
the Mexican army, of the other part. 

' 'Article I. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna 
agrees that he will not take up arms, nor will he exer- 
cise his influence to cause them to be taken up, 
against the people of Texas during the present war of 
independence. 

"Article II. All hostilities between the Mexican 
and Texan troops will cease immediately, both by 
land and water. 



Abraham Lincoln 43 

"Article III. The Mexican troops will evacuate the 
territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the 
Rio Grande Del Norte. 

"Article IV. The Mexican army, in its retreat, 
shall not take the property of any person without 
his consent and just indemnification, using only 
such articles as may be necessary for its subsist- 
ence, in cases when the owner may not be present, 
and remitting to the commander of the army of 
Texas, or to the commissioners to be appointed for 
the adjustment of such matters, an account of the 
value of the property consumed, the place where 
taken, and the name of the owner, if it can be 
ascertained. 

"Article V. That all private property, including 
cattle, horses, negro slaves, or indentured persons, 
of whatever denomination, that may have been 
captured by any portion of the Mexican army, or 
may have taken refuge in the said army, since the 
commencement of the late invasion, shall be restored 
to the commander of the Texan army, or to such 
other persons as may be appointed by the Govern- 
ment of Texas to receive them. 

' * Article VI . The troops of both armies will refrain 
from coming in contact with each other ; and to this 
end the commander of the army of Texas will be 
careful not to approach within a shorter distance 
than five leagues. 

"Article VII. The Mexican army shall not make 
any other delay on its march than that which is 
necessary to take up their hospitals, baggage, etc., 
and to cross the rivers; any delay not necessary to 



44 The Writings of 

these piirposes to be considered an infraction of this 
agreement. 

"Article VIII. By an express, to be immediately 
despatched, this agreement shall be sent to General 
Vincente Filisola and to General T. J. Rusk, com- 
mander of the Texan army, in order that they may 
be apprised of its stipulations ; and to this end they 
will exchange engagements to comply with the 
same. 

"Article IX. That all Texan prisoners now in the 
possession of the Mexican army, or its authorities, 
be forthwith released, and furnished with free pass- 
ports to return to their homes; in consideration of 
which a corresponding number of Mexican prisoners, 
rank and file, now in possession of the Government 
of Texas shall be immediately released; the re- 
mainder of the Mexican prisoners that continue in 
the possession of the Government of Texas to be 
treated with due humanity, — any extraordinary 
comforts that may be furnished them to be at the 
charge of the Government of Mexico. 

"Article X. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna 
will be sent to Vera Cruz as soon as it shall be deemed 
proper. 

"The contracting parties sign this instrument for 
the above-mentioned purposes, in duplicate, at the 
port of Velasco, this fourteenth day of May, 1836. 
"David G. Burnet, President, 
"Jas. Collingsworth, Secretary of State, 
"Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, 
"B. Hardiman, Secretary of the Treasury, 
"P. W. Grayson, Attorney-General/' 



Abraham Lincoln 45 

REPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
JANUARY 19, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln, from the Committee on the Post- 
office and Post Roads, made the following report : 

The Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, 
to whom was referred the petition of Messrs. Salt- 
marsh and Fuller, report: That, as proved to their 
satisfaction, the mail routes from Milledgeville to 
Athens, and from Warrenton to Decatur, in the State 
of Georgia (numbered 2366 and 2380), were let to 
Reeside and Avery at $1300 per annum for the for- 
mer and $1500 for the latter, for the term of four 
years, to commence on the first day of January, 
1835 ; that, previous to the time for commencing the 
service, Reeside sold his interest therein to Avery; 
that on the nth of May, 1835, Avery sold the whole 
to these petitioners, Saltmarsh and Fuller, to take 
effect from the beginning, January i, 1835; that 
at this time, the Assistant Postmaster-General, be- 
ing called on for that purpose, consented to the 
transfer of the contracts from Reeside and Avery 
to these petitioners, and promised to have proper 
entries of the transfer made on the books of the 
department, which, however, was neglected to be 
done ; that the petitioners, supposing all was right, 
in good faith commenced the transportation of the 
mail on these routes, and after difficulty arose, still 
trusting that all would be made right, continued the 
service till December i, 1837; that they performed 
the service to the entire satisfaction of the depart- 
ment, and have never been paid anything for it 



46 The Writings of 

except $ ; that the difficulty occurred as follows: 

Mr. Barry was Postmaster-General at the times of 
making the contracts and the attempted transfer of 
them; Mr. Kendall succeeded Mr. Barry, and finding 
Reeside apparently in debt to the department, and 
these contracts still standing in the names of Reeside 
and Avery, refused to pay for the services under 
them, otherwise than by credits to Reeside; after- 
ward, however, he divided the compensation, still 
crediting one half to Reeside, and directing the other 
to be paid to the order of Avery, who disclaimed all 
right to it. After discontinuing the service, these 
petitioners, supposing they might have legal redress 
against Avery, brought suit against him in New 
Orleans; in which suit they failed, on the ground 
that Avery had complied with his contract, having 
done so much toward the transfer as they had 
accepted and been satisfied with. Still later the 
department sued Reeside on his supposed indebted- 
ness, and by a verdict of the jury it was determined 
that the department was indebted to him in a sum 
much beyond all the credits given him on the 
account above stated. Under these circumstances, 
the committee consider the petitioners clearly en- 
titled to relief, and they report a bill accordingly; 
lest, however, there should be some mistake as to the 
amount which they have already received, we so 
frame it as that, by adjustment at the department, 
they may be paid so much as remains unpaid for 
services actually performed by them — not charging 
them with the credits given to Reeside. The com- 
mittee think it not improbable that the petitioners 



Abraham Lincoln 47 

purchased the right of Avery to be paid for the ser- 
vice from the ist of January, till their purchase on 
May II, 1835 ; but, the evidence on this point being 
very vague, they forbear to report in favor of allow- 
ing it. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, January 19, 1848. 

Dear William: — Inclosed you find a letter of 
Louis W. Chandler. What is wanted is that you 
shall ascertain whether the claim upon the note 
described has received any dividend in the Probate 
Court of Christian County, where the estate of Mr. 
Overton Williams has been administered on. If 
nothing is paid on it, withdraw the note and send it 
to me, so that Chandler can see the indorser of it. 
At all events write me all about it, till I can some- 
how get it off my hands. I have already been 
bored more than enough about it; not the least of 
which annoyance is his cursed, unreadable, and 
ungodly handwriting. 

I have made a speech, a copy of which I will send 
you by next mail. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, February i, 1848, 

Dear William: — Your letter of the 19th ultimo 
was received last night, and for which I am much 



48 The Writings of 

r 

obliged. 1 The only thing in it that I wish to talk to 
you at once about is that because of my vote for 
Ashmun's amendment you fear that you and I dis- 
agree about the war. I regret this, not because of 
any fear we shall remain disagreed after you have 
read this letter, but because if you misunderstand I 
fear other good friends may also. That vote affirms 
that the war was unnecessarily and unconstitu- 
tionally commenced by the President; and I will 
stake my life that if you had been in my place you 
would have voted just as I did. Would you have 
voted what you felt and knew to be a lie? I know 
you would not. Would you have gone out of the 
House — skulked the vote? I expect not. If you 
had skulked one vote, you would have had to skulk 
many more before the end of the session. Richard- 
son's resolutions, introduced before I made any 
move or gave any vote upon the subject, make the 
direct question of the justice of the war; so that no 
man can be silent if he would. You are compelled 
to speak; and your only alternative is to tell the 
truth or a lie. I cannot doubt which you would do.j 
This vote has nothing to do in determining my 
votes on the questions of supplies. I have always 
intended, and still intend, to vote supplies; perhaps 
not in the precise form recommended by the Presi- 
dent, but in a better form for all purposes, except 
Locofoco party purposes. It is in this particular 
you seem mistaken. The Locos are untiring in their 
efforts to make the impression that all who vote 
supplies or take part in the war do of necessity 
approve the President's conduct in the beginning of 



Abraham Lincoln 49 

it; but the Whigs have from the beginning made 
and kept the distinction between the two. In the 
very first act nearly all the Whigs voted against the 
preamble declaring that war existed by the act of 
Mexico; and yet nearly all of them voted for the 
supplies. As to the Whig men who have partici- 
pated in the war, so far as they have spoken in my 
hearing they do not hesitate to denotmce as unjust 
the President's conduct in the beginning of the war. 
They do not suppose that such denunciation is 
directed by undying hatred to him, as The Register 
would have it believed. There are two such Whigs 
on this floor (Colonel Haskell and Major James) 
The former fought as a colonel by the side of Colonel 
Baker at Cerro Gordo, and stands side by side with 
me in the vote that you seem dissatisfied with. The 
latter, the history of whose capture with Cassius Clay 
you well know, had not arrived here when that vote 
was given ; but, as I understand, he stands ready to 
give just such a vote whenever an occasion shall 
present. Baker, too, who is now here, says the 
truth is undoubtedly that way; and whenever he 
shall speak out, he will say so. Colonel Doniphan, 
too, the favorite Whig of Missouri, and who overran 
all Northern Mexico, on his return home in a public 
speech at St. Louis condemned the administration 
in relation to the war, if I remember. G. T. M. 
Davis, who has been through almost the whole war, 
declares in favor of Mr. Clay; from which I infer 
that he adopts the sentiments of Mr. Clay, generally 
at least. On the other hand, I have heard of but one 
Whig who has been to the war attempting to justify 

VOL. II. — 4. 



50 The Writings of 

the President's conduct. That one was Captain 
Bishop, editor of the Charleston Courier, and a very- 
clever fellow. I do not mean this letter for the 
public, but for you. Before it reaches you, you will 
have seen and read my pamphlet speech, and per- 
haps been scared anew by it. After you get over 
your scare, read it over again, sentence by sentence, 
and tell me honestly what you think of it. I con- 
densed all I could for fear of being cut off by the 
hour rule, and when I got through I had spoken but 
forty-five minutes. Yours forever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, February 2, 1848. 

Dear William: — I just take my pen to sa}^ that 
Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, a little, slim, pale-faced, 
consumptive man, with a voice like Logan's, has 
just concluded the very best speech of an hour's 
length I ever heard. My old withered dry eyes are 
full of tears yet. 

If he writes it out anything like he delivered it, 
our people shall see a good many copies of it. 

Yours truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, February 15, 1848. 

Dear William: — Your letter of the 29th January 
was received last night. Being exclusively a const i- 



Abraham Lincoln 51 

tutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections 
upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know 
actuates you. Let me first state what I understand 
to be your position. It is that if it shall become 
necessary to repel invasion, the President may, 
without violation of the Constitution, cross the line 
and invade the territory of another country, and 
that whether such necessity exists in any given case 
the President is the sole judge. 

Before going further consider well whether this is 
or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that 
neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, 
so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only posi- 
tions are — first, that the soil was ours when the 
hostilities commenced; and second, that whether it 
was rightfully ours or not. Congress had annexed it, 
and the President for that reason was boimd to 
defend it ; both of which are as clearly proved to be 
false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. 
The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex 
or attempt to annex it. But to return to your 
position. Allow the President to invade a neigh- 
boring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to 
repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so when- 
ever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for 
such purpose, and you allow him to make war at 
pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his 
power in this respect, after having given him so 
much as you propose. If to-day he should choose 
to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to 
prevent the British from invading us, how could 
you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no 



52 The Writings of 

probability of the British invading us" ; but he will 
say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't." 

The provision of the Constitution giving the war- 
making power to Congress was dictated, as I under- 
stand it, by the following reasons: Kings had 
always been involving and impoverishing their people 
in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the 
good of the people was the object. This our con- 
vention understood to be the most oppressive of all 
kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the 
Constitution that no one man should hold the power 
of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view 
destroys the whole matter, and places our President 
where kings have always stood. Write soon again. 

Yours truly, 
A. Lincoln. 



REPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
MARCH 9, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln, from the Committee on the Post- 
ofiQce and Post Roads, made the following report: 

The Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, 
to whom was referred the resolution of the House of 
Representatives entitled "An Act authorizing post- 
masters at county seats of justice to receive sub- 
scriptions for newspapers and periodicals, to be paid 
through the agency of the Post-office Department, 
and for other purposes," beg leave to submit the 
following report : 

The committee have reason to believe that a 



Abraham Lincoln 53 

general wish pervades the community at large that 
some such facility as the proposed measure should 
be granted by express law, for subscribing, through 
the agency of the Post-office Department, to news- 
papers and periodicals which diffuse daily, weekly, or 
monthly intelligence of passing events. Compliance 
with this general wish is deemed to be in accordance 
with our republican institutions, which can be best 
sustained by the diffusion of knowledge and the due 
encouragement of a universal, national spirit of in- 
quiry and discussion of public events through the 
medium of the public press. The committee, how- 
ever, has not been insensible to its duty of guarding 
the Post-office Department against injurious sacri- 
fices for the accomplishment of this object, whereby 
its ordinary efficacy might be impaired or embar- 
rassed. It has therefore been a subject of much 
consideration ; but it is now confidently hoped that 
the bill herewith submitted effectually obviates all 
objections which might exist with regard to a less 
matured proposition. 

The committee learned, upon inquiry, that the 
Post-office Department, in view of meeting the 
general wish on this subject,, made the experiment 
through one if its own internal regulations, when the 
new postage system went into operation on the first 
of July, 1845, and that it was continued until the 
thirtieth of September, 1847. But this experiment, 
for reasons hereafter stated, proved unsatisfac- 
tory, and it was discontinued by order of the Post- 
master-General. As far as the committee can at 
present ascertain, the following seem to have 



54 The Writings of 

been the principal grounds of dissatisfaction in this 
experiment : 

(i) The legal responsibility of postmasters receiv- 
ing newspaper subscriptions, or of their sureties, was 
not defined. 

(2) The authority was open to all postmasters 
instead of being limited to those of specific offices. 

(3) The consequence of this extension of authority 
was that, in innumerable instances, the money, 
without the previous knowledge or control of the 
officers of the department who are responsible for 
the good management of its finances, was deposited 
in offices where it was improper such funds should be 
placed; and the repayment was ordered, not by the 
financial officers, but by the postmasters, at points 
where it was inconvenient to the department so to 
disburse its funds. 

(4) The inconvenience of accumulating uncertain 
and fluctuating sums at small offices was felt seriously 
in consequent overpayments to contractors on their 
quarterly collecting orders; and, in case of private 
mail routes, in litigation concerning the misapplica- 
tion of such fimds to the special service of supplying 
mails. 

(5) The accumulation of such funds on draft 
offices could not be known to the financial clerks of 
the department in time to control it, and too often 
this rendered uncertain all their calculations of 
fimds in hand. 

(6) The orders of payment were for the most part 
issued upon the principal offices, such as New York, 
Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, etc., where the large 



Abraham Lincoln 55 

offices of publishers are located, causing an illimitable 
and uncontrollable drain of the department funds 
from those points where it was essential to hus- 
band them for its own regular disbursements. In 
Philadelphia alone this drain averaged $5000 per 
quarter ; and in other cities of the seaboard it was 
proportionate. 

(7) The embarrassment of the department was 
increased by the illimitable, uncontrollable, and 
irresponsible scattering of its funds from concen- 
trated points suitable for its distributions, to remote, 
unsafe, and inconvenient offices, where they could 
not be again made available till collected by special 
agents, or were transferred at considerable expense 
into the principal disbursing offices again. 

(8) There was a vast increase of duties thrown 
upon the limited force before necessary to conduct 
the business of the department ; and from the delay 
of obtaining vouchers impediments arose to the 
speedy settlement of accounts with present or re- 
tired postmasters, causing postponements which en- 
dangered the liability of sureties under the act of 
limitations, and causing much danger of an increase 
of such cases. 

(9) The most responsible postmasters (at the 
large offices) were ordered by the least responsible 
(at small offices) to make payments upon their 
vouchers, without having the means of ascertaining 
whether these vouchers were genuine or forged, or if 
genuine, whether the signers were in or out of office, 
or solvent or defaulters. 

(10) The transaction of this business for sub- 



56 The Writings of 

scribers and publishers at the pubHc expense, and 
the embarrassment, inconvenience, and delay of the 
department's own business occasioned by it, were 
not justified by any sufficient remuneration of 
revenue to sustain the department, as required in 
every other respect with regard to its agency. 

The committee, in view of these objections, has 
been solicitous to frame a bill which would not be 
obnoxious to them in principle or in practical effect. 

It is confidently believed that by limiting the 
offices for receiving subscriptions to less than one 
tenth of the number authorized by the experiment 
already tried, and designating the county seat in 
each county for the purpose, the control of the 
department will be rendered satisfactory; particu- 
larly as it will be in the power of the Auditor, who is 
the officer required by law to check the accounts, 
to approve or disapprove of the deposits, and to 
sanction not only the payments, but to point out the 
place of payment. If these payments should cause 
a drain on the principal offices of the seaboard, it will 
be compensated by the accumulation of funds at 
county seats, where the contractors on those routes 
can be paid to that extent by the department's 
drafts, with more local convenience to themselves 
than by drafts on the seaboard offices. 

The legal responsibility for these deposits is de- 
fined, and the accumulation of funds at the point of 
deposit, and the repayment at points drawn upon, 
being known to and controlled by the Auditor, will 
not occasion any such embarrassments as were before 
felt; the record kept by the Auditor on the passing 



Abraham Lincoln 57 

of the certificates through his hands will enable him 
to settle accounts without the delay occasioned by 
vouchers being withheld; all doubt or uncertainty 
as to the genuineness of certificates, or the propriety 
of their issue, will be removed by the Auditor's 
examination and approval ; and there can be no risk 
of loss of funds by transmission, as the certificate 
will not be payable till sanctioned by the Auditor, 
and after his sanction the payor need not pay it un- 
less it is presented by the publisher or his known 
clerk or agent. 

The main principle of equivalent for the agency 
of the department is secured by the postage required 
to be paid upon the transmission of the certificates, 
augmenting adequately the post-office revenue. 

The committee, conceiving that in this report all 
the difficulties of the subject have been fully and 
fairly stated, and that these difficulties have been 
obviated by the plan proposed in the accompanying 
bill, and believing that the measure will satisfactorily 
meet the wants and wishes of a very large portion of 
the commimity, beg leave to recommend its adoption. 



REPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
MARCH 9, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln, from the Committee on the Post- 
office and Post Roads, made the following report : 

The Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, 
to whom was referred the petition of H. M. Barney, 



58 The Writings of 

postmaster at Brimfield, Peoria County, Illinois, 
report: That they have been satisfied by evidence, 
that on the 15th of December, 1847, said petitioner 
had his store, with some fifteen hundred dollars' 
worth of goods, together with all the papers of the 
post-office, entirely destroyed by fire; and that the 
specie funds of the office were melted down, partially 
lost and partially destroyed; that this large indi- 
vidual loss entirely precludes the idea of embezzle- 
ment; that the balances due the department of 
former quarters had been only about twenty-five 
dollars ; and that owing to the destruction of papers, 
the exact amount due for the quarter ending Decem- 
ber 31, 1847, cannot be ascertained. They there- 
fore report a joint resolution, releasing said petitioner 
from paying anything for the quarter last mentioned. 



REMARKS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRE- 
SENTATIVES, MARCH 29, 1848. 

The bill for raising additional military force for 
limited time, etc., was reported from Committee on 
Judiciary; similar bills had been reported from 
Committee on Public Lands and Military Committee. 

Mr. Lincoln said if there was a general desire on 
the part of the House to pass the bill now he should 
be glad to have it done — concurring, as he did 
generally, with the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Johnson] that the postponement might jeopard the 
safety of the proposition. If, however, a reference 



Abraham Lincoln 59 

was to be made, he wished to make a very few 
remarks in relation to the several subjects desired 
by the gentlemen to be embraced in amendments 
to the ninth section of the act of the last session of 
Congress. The first amendment desired by members 
of this House had for its only object to give bounty 
lands to such persons as had served for a time as 
privates, but had never been discharged as such, 
because promoted to office. That subject, and no 
other, was embraced in this bill. There were some 
others who desired, while they were legislating on 
this subject, that they should also give bounty lands 
to the volunteers of the War of 181 2. His friend 
from Maryland said there were no such men. He 
[Mr. L.] did not say there were many, but he was 
very confident there were some. His friend from 
Kentucky near him [Mr. Gaines] told him he himself 
was one. 

There was still another proposition touching this 
matter; that was, that persons entitled to bounty 
lands should by law be entitled to locate these lands 
in parcels, and not be required to locate them in one 
body, as was provided by the existing law. 

Now he had carefully drawn up a bill embracing 
these three separate propositions, which he intended 
to propose as a substitute for all these bills in the 
House, or in Committee of the Whole on the State of 
the Union, at some suitable time. If there was a 
disposition on the part of the House to act at once 
on this separate proposition, he repeated that, with 
the gentlemen from Arkansas, he should prefer it lest 
they should lose all. But if there was to be a 



6o The Writings of 

reference, he desired to introduce his bill embracing 
the three propositions, thus enabling the committee 
and the House to act at the same time, whether 
favorably or unfavorably, upon all. He inquired 
whether an amendment was now in order. 
The Speaker replied in the negative. 



TO ARCHIBALD WILLIAMS. 

Washington, April 30, 1848. 

Dear Williams : — I have not seen in the papers any 
evidence of a movement to send a delegate from your 
circuit to the June convention. I wish to say that I 
think it all-important that a delegate should be sent. 
Mr. Clay's chance for an election is just no chance at 
all. He might get New York, and that would have 
elected in 1844, but it will not now, because he must 
now, at the least, lose Tennessee, which he had then, 
and in addition the fifteen new votes of Florida, 
Texas, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I know our good friend 
Browning is a great admirer of Mr. Clay, and I there- 
fore fear he is favoring his nomination. If he is, 
ask him to discard feeling, and try if he can possibly, 
as a matter of judgment, count the votes necessary 
to elect him. 

In my judgment we can elect nobody but General 
Taylor ; and we cannot elect him without a nomina- 
tion. Therefore don't fail to send a delegate. 

Your friend as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 6i 

REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
MAY II, 1848. 

A bill for the admission of Wisconsin into the 
Union had been passed. 

Mr. Lincoln moved to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed. He stated to the House that he 
had made this motion for the purpose of obtaining an 
opportunity to say a few words in relation to a 
point raised in the course of the debate on this bill, 
which he would now proceed to make if in order. 
The point in the case to which he referred arose on 
the amendment that was submitted by the gentle- 
man from Vermont [Mr. Collamer] in Committee of 
the Whole on the State of the Union, and which was 
afterward renewed in the House, in relation to the 
question whether the reserved sections, which, by 
some bills heretofore passed, by which an appro- 
priation of land had been made to Wisconsin, had 
been enhanced in value, should be reduced to the 
minimum price of the public lands. The question 
of the reduction in value of those sections was to him 
at this time a matter very nearly of indifference. 
He was inclined to desire that Wisconsin should be 
obliged by having it reduced. But the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. C. B. Smith], the chairman of the 
Committee on Territories, yesterday associated that 
question with the general question, which is now to 
some extent agitated in Congress, of making appro- 
priations of alternate sections of land to aid the 
States in making internal improvements, and en- 
hancing the price of the sections reserved, and the 



;/ 



62 The Writines of 



t>- 



gentleman from Indiana took ground against that 
policy. He did not make any special argument in 
favor of Wisconsin, ■ but he took ground generally 
against the policy of giving alternate sections of 
land, and enhancing the price of the reserved sec- 
tions. Now he [Mr. Lincoln] did not at this time take 
the floor for the purpose of attempting to make an 
argument on the general subject. He rose simply 
to protest against the doctrine which the gentleman 
from Indiana had avowed in the course of what he 
[Mr. Lincoln] could not but consider an unsound 
argument. 

It might, however, be true, for an3rthing he knew, 
that the gentleman from Indiana might convince him 
that his argument was sound; but he [Mr. Lincoln] 
feared that gentleman would not be able to convince 
a majority in Congress that it was sound. It was true 
the question appeared in a different aspect to per- 
sons in consequence of a difference in the point from 
which they looked at it. It did not look to persons 
residing east of the mountains as it did to those who 
lived among the public lands. But, for his part, he 
would state that if Congress would make a donation 
of alternate sections of public land for the purpose of 
internal improvements in his State, and forbid the 
reserved sections being sold at $1.25, he should be 
glad to see the appropriation made ; though he should 
prefer it if the reserved sections were not enhanced in 
price. He repeated, he should be glad to have such 
appropriations made, even though the reserved sec- 
tions should be enhanced in price. He did not wish 
to be understood as concurring in any intimation 



^ 



Abraham Lincoln 6 



J 



that they would refuse to receive such an appropria- 
tion of alternate sections of land because a condition 
enhancing the price of the reserved sections should 
be attached thereto. He believed his position 
would now be understood: if not, he feared he 
should not be able to make himself understood. 

But, before he took his seat, he would remark that 
the Senate during the present session had passed a 
bill making appropriations of land on that principle 
for the benefit of the State in which he resided — ^the 
State of Illinois. The alternate sections were to be 
given for the purpose of constructing roads, and the 
reserved sections were to be enhanced in value in 
consequence. When that bill came here for the 
action of this House — it had been received, and was 
now before the Committee on Public Lands — ^he 
desired much to see it passed as it was, if it could be 
put in no more favorable form for the State of 
IlHnois. When it should be before this House, if 
any member from a section of the Union in which 
these lands did not lie, whose interest might be less 
than that which he felt, should propose a reduction 
of the price of the reserved sections to $1.25, he 
should be much obliged; but he did not think it 
would be well for those who came from the section of 
the Union in which the lands lay to do so. He 
wished it, then, to be understood that he did not 
join in the warfare against the principle which had 
engaged the minds of some members of Congress who 
were favorable to the improvements in the western 
country. 

There was a good deal of force, he admitted, in 



64 The Writings of 

what fell from the chairman of the Committee on 
Territories. It miight be that there was no precise 
justice in raising the price of the reserved sections to 
$2.50 per acre. It might be proper that the price 
should be enhanced to some extent, though not to 
double the usual price ; but he should be glad to have 
such an appropriation with the reserved sections at 
$2.50; he should be better pleased to have the price 
of those sections at something less ; and he should be 
still better pleased to have them without any en- 
hancement at all. 

There was one portion of the argument of the 
gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Territories [Mr. Smith], which he wished 
to take occasion to say that he did not view as 
imsound. He alluded to the statement that the 
General Government was interested in these internal 
improvements being made, inasmuch as they in- 
creased the value of the lands that were unsold, and 
they enabled the government to sell the lands which 
could not be sold without them. Thus, then, the 
government gained by internal improvements as well 
as by the general good which the people derived from 
them, and it might be, therefore, that the lands 
should not be sold for more than $1.50 instead 
of the price being doubled. He, however, merely 
mentioned this in passing, for he only rose to state, 
as the principle of giving these lands for the purposes 
which he had mentioned had been laid hold of and 
considered favorably, and as there were some gentle- 
men who had constitutional scruples about giving 
money for these purchases who would not hesitate to 



Abraham Lincoln 65 

give land, that he was not willing to have it under- 
stood that he was one of those who made war against 
that principle. This was all he desired to say, and 
having accomplished the object with which he rose, 
he withdrew his motion to reconsider. 



Dear Sir: 



TO REV. J. M. PECK 

Washington, May 21, 1848. 



Not in view of all the facts. There are facts 
which you have kept out of view. It is a fact that 
the United States army in marching to the Rio 
Grande marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, 
and frightened the inhabitants away from their 
homes and their growing crops. It is a fact that 
Fort Brown, opposite Matamoras, was built by that 
army within a Mexican cotton-field, on which at the 
time the army reached it a young cotton crop was 
growing, and which crop was wholly destroyed and 
the field itself greatly and permanently injured by 
ditches, embankments, and the like. It is a fact 
that when the Mexicans captured Captain Thornton 
and his command, they found and captured them 
within another Mexican field. 

Now I wish to bring these facts to your notice, and 
to ascertain what is the result of your reflections 
upon them. If you deny that they are facts, I think 
I can furnish proofs which shall convince you that 
you are mistaken. If you admit that they are facts, 
then I shall be obliged for a reference to any law of 



\ 



VOL. 11. — 5. 



66 The Writings of 

language, law of States, law of nations, law of morals, 
law of religions, any law, human or divine, in which 
an authority can be found for saying those facts con- 
stitute "no aggression." 

Possibly you consider those acts too small for 
notice. Would you venture to so consider them had 
they been committed by any nation on earth against 
the humblest of our people ? I know you would not. 
Then I ask, is the precept " Whatsoever ye would 
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" 
obsolete ? of no force ? of no application ? 

Yours truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO ARCHIBALD WILLIAMS. 

Washington, June 12, 1848. 

Dear Williams: — On my return from Philadel- 
phia, where I had been attending the nomination of 
"Old Rough," I found your letter in a mass of others 
which had accumulated in my absence. By many, 
and often, it had been said they would not abide the 
nomination of Taylor; but since the deed has been 
done, they are fast falling in, and in my opinion we 
shall have a most overwhelming, glorious triumph. 
One unmistakable sign is that all the odds and ends 
are with us — Barnburners, Native Americans, Tyler 
men, disappointed office-seeking Locofocos, and the 
Lord knows what. This is important, if in nothing 
else, in showing which way the wind blows. Some of 



Abraham Lincoln 67 

the sanguine men have set down all the States as 
certain for Taylor but Illinois, and it as doubtful. 
Cannot something be done even in Illinois ? Taylor's 
nomination takes the Locos on the blind side. It 
turns the war thunder against them. The war is 
now to them the gallows of Haman, which they built 
for us, and on which they are doomed to be hanged 
themselves. 

Excuse this short letter. I have so many to write 
that I cannot devote much time to any one. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
JUNE 20, 1848. 

In Committee of the Whole on the State of the 
Union, on the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation 
Bill: 

Mr. Chairman : — I wish at all times in no way to 
practise any fraud upon the House or the committee, 
and I also desire to do nothing which may be very 
disagreeable to any of the members. I therefore 
state in advance that my object in taking the floor is 
to make a speech on the general subject of internal 
improvements; and if I am out of order in doing so, 
I give the chair an opportunity of so deciding, and I 
will take my seat. 

The Chair : I will not undertake to anticipate what 
the gentleman may say on the subject of internal 
improvements. He will, therefore, proceed in his 



68 The Writinofs of 



C5- 



remarks, and if any question of order shall be made, 
the chair will then decide it. 

Mr. Lincoln: At an early day of this session the 
President sent us what may properly be called an 
internal improvement veto message. The late Demo- 
cratic convention, which sat at Baltimore, and which 
nominated General Cass for the Presidency, adopted 
a set of resolutions, now called the Democratic plat- 
form, among which is one in these words : 

' ' That the Constitution does not confer upon the 
General Government the power to commence and 
carry on a general system of internal improve- 
ments." 

General Cass, in his letter accepting the nomina- 
tion, holds this language: 

' ' T have carefully read the resolutions of the Demo- 
cratic national convention, laying down the plat- 
form of our political faith, and I adhere to them as 
firmly as I approve them cordially." 

These things, taken together, show that the ques- 
tion of internal improvements is now more distinctly 
made — ^has become more intense — than at any former 
period. The veto message and the Baltimore reso- 
lution I understand to be, in substance, the same 
thing; the latter being the more general statement, 
of which the former is the amplification — the bill of 
particulars. While I know there are many Demo- 
crats, on this floor and elsewhere, who disapprove 
that message, I understand that all who voted for 
General Cass will thereafter be counted as having 
approved it, — as having indorsed all its doctrines. 



Abraham Lincoln 69 

I suppose all, or nearly all, the Democrats will vote 
for him. Many of them will do so not because they 
like his position on this question, but because they 
prefer him, being wrong on this, to another whom 
they consider farther wrong on other questions. In 
this way the internal improvement Democrats are to 
be, by a sort of forced consent, carried over and 
arrayed against themselves on this measure of policy. 
General Cass, once elected, will not trouble himself 
to make a constitutional argument, or perhaps any 
argument at all, when he shall veto a river or harbor 
bill; he will consider it a sufficient answer to all 
Democratic murmurs to point to Mr. Polk's message, 
and to the Democratic platform. This being the 
case, the question of improvements is verging to a 
final crisis; and the friends of this policy must now 
battle, and battle manfully, or surrender all. In this 
view, humble as I am, I wish to review, and contest 
as well as I may, the general positions of this veto 
message. When I say general positions, I mean to 
exclude from consideration so much as relates to the 
present embarrassed state of the treasury in conse- 
quence of the Mexican War. 

Those general positions are : that internal improve- 
ments ought not to be made by the General Govern- 
ment — First. Because they would overwhelm the 
treasury Second. Because, while their burdens 
would be general, their benefits would be local and 
partial, involving an obnoxious inequality; and — 
Third. Because they would be unconstitutional. 
Fourth. Because the States may do enough by 
the levy and collection of tonnage duties ; or if not — 



70 The Writings of 

Fifth. That the Constitution may be amended. 
"Do nothing at all, lest you do something wrong," 
is the sum of these positions — is the sum of this 
message. And this, with the exception of what is 
said about constitutionality, applying as forcibly to 
what is said about making improvements by State 
authority as by the national authority; so that we 
must abandon the improvements of the country 
altogether, by any and every authority, or we must 
resist and repudiate the doctrines of this message. 
Let us attempt the latter. 

The first position is, that a system of internal im- 
provements would overwhelm the treasury. That 
in such a system there is a tendency to undue ex- 
pansion, is not to be denied. Such tendency is 
founded in the nature of the subject. A member of 
Congress will prefer voting for a bill which contains 
an appropriation for his district, to voting for one 
which does not; and when a bill shall be expanded 
till every district shall be provided for, that it will 
be too greatly expanded is obvious. But is this any 
more true in Congress than in a State Legislature ? 
If a member of Congress must have an appropriation 
for his district, so a member of a Legislature must 
have one for his county. And if one will overwhelm 
the national treasury, so the other will overwhelm 
the State treasury. Go where we will, the difficulty 
is the same. Allow it to drive us from the halls of 
Congress, and it will, just as easily, drive us from the 
State Legislatures. Let us, then, grapple with it, 
and test its strength. Let us, judging of the future 
by the past, ascertain whether there may not be, in 



Abraham Lincoln 71 

the discretion of Congress, a sufficient power to Umit 
and restrain this expansive tendency within reason- 
able and proper bounds. The President himself 
values the evidence of the past. He tells us that at 
a certain point of our history more than two hundred 
millions of dollars had been applied for to make 
improvements; and this he does to prove that the 
treasury would be overwhelmed by such a system. 
Why did he not tell us how much was granted? 
Would not that have been better evidence ? Let us 
turn to it, and see what it proves. In the message 
the President tells us that ' ' during the four succeed- 
ing years embraced by the administration of Presi- 
dent Adams, the power not only to appropriate 
money, but to apply it, under the direction and 
authority of the General Government, as well to the 
construction of roads as to the improvement of 
harbors and rivers, was fully asserted and exercised." 
This, then, was the period of greatest enormity. 
These, if any, must have been the days of the two 
himdred millions. And how much do you suppose 
was really expended for improvements during that 
four years ? Two himdred millions ? One himdred ? 
Fifty? Ten? Five? No, sir; less than two mil- 
lions. As shown by authentic documents, the ex- 
penditures on improvements during 1825, 1826, 1827, 
and 1828 amounted to one million eight hundred and 
seventy-nine thousand six hundred and twenty-seven 
dollars and one cent. These four years were the 
period of Mr. Adams's administration, nearly and 
substantially. This fact shows that when the power 
to make improvements "was fully asserted and 



72 The Writings of 

exercised," the Congress did keep within reasonable 
limits; and what has been done, it seems to me, can 
be done again. 

Now for the second portion of the message — 
namely, that the burdens of improvements would 
be general, while their benefits would be local and 
partial, involving an obnoxious inequality. That 
there is some degree of truth in this position, I shall 
not deny. No commercial object of government 
patronage can be so exclusively general as to not be 
of some peculiar local advantage. The navy, as I 
understand it, was established, and is maintained at 
a great annual expense, partly to be ready for war 
when war shall come, and partly also, and perhaps 
chiefly, for the protection of our commerce on the 
high seas. This latter object is, for all I can see, in 
principle the same as internal improvements. The 
driving a pirate from the track of commerce on the 
broad ocean, and the removing of a snag from its 
more narrow path in the Mississippi River, cannot, I 
think, be distinguished in principle. Each is done 
to save life and property, and for nothing else. 

The navy, then, is the most general in its benefits 
of all this class of objects; and yet even the navy is 
of some peculiar advantage to Charleston, Baltimore, 
Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, beyond what 
it is to the interior towns of Illinois. The next most 
general object I can think of would be improvements 
on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. They 
touch thirteen of our States — ^Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Ar- 
kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin^ 



Abraham Lincoln 73 

and Iowa. Now I suppose it will not be denied that 
these thirteen States are a little more interested 
in improvements on that great river than are the 
remaining seventeen. These instances of the navy 
and the Mississippi River show clearly that there is 
something of local advantage in the most general 
objects. But the converse is also true. Nothing 
is so local as to not be of some general benefit. 
Take, for instance, the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 
Considered apart from its effects, it is perfectly 
local. Every inch of it is within the State of Illinois. 
That canal was first opened for business last April. 
In a very few days we were all gratified to learn, 
among other things, that sugar had been carried 
from New Orleans through this canal to Buffalo in 
New York. This sugar took this route, doubtless, 
because it was cheaper than the old route. Sup- 
posing benefit of the reduction in the cost of carriage 
to be shared between seller and buyer, the result is 
that the New Orleans merchant sold his sugar a little 
dearer, and the people of Buffalo sweetened their 
coffee a little cheaper, than before, — a benefit re- 
sulting from the canal, not to Illinois, where the 
canal is, but to Louisiana and New York, where it is 
not. In other transactions Illinois will, of course, 
have her share, and perhaps the larger share too, of 
the benefits of the canal; but this instance of the 
sugar clearly shows that the benefits of an improve- 
ment are by no means confined to the particular 
locality of the improvement itself. 

The just conclusion from all this is that if the 
nation refuse to make improvements of the more 



74 The Writings of 

general kind because their benefits may be somewhat 
local, a State may for the same reason refuse to 
make an improvement of a local kind because its 
benefits may be somewhat general. A State may 
well say to the nation, "If you will do nothing for 
me, I will do nothing for you." Thus it is seen that 
if this argument of "inequality" is sufficient any- 
where, it is sufficient everywhere, and puts an end 
to improvements altogether. I hope and believe 
that if both the nation and the States would, in 
good faith, in their respective spheres do what they 
could in the way of improvements, what of inequality 
might be produced in one place might be compen- 
sated in another, and the sum of the whole might not 
be very unequal. 

But suppose, after all, there should be some degree 
of inequality. Inequality is certainly never to be 
embraced for its own sake ; but is every good thing to 
be discarded which may be inseparably connected 
with some degree of it? If so, we must discard all 
government. This Capitol is built at the public 
expense, for the public benefit; but does any one 
doubt that it is of some peculiar local advantage to 
the property-holders and business people of Wash- 
ington? Shall we remove it for this reason? And 
if so, where shall we set it down, and be free from the 
difficulty? To make sure of our object, shall we 
locate it nowhere, and have Congress hereafter to 
hold its sessions, as the loafer lodged, "in spots 
about " ? I make no allusion to the present President 
when I say there are few stronger cases in this world 
of "burden to the many and benefit to the few," 



Abraham Lincoln 75 

of "inequality," than the Presidency itself is by 
some thought to be. An honest laborer digs coal at 
about seventy cents a day, while the President digs 
abstractions at about seventy dollars a day. The 
coal is clearly worth more than the abstractions, and 
yet what a monstrous inequality in the prices! Does 
the President, for this reason, propose to abolish 
the Presidency? He does not, and he ought not. 
The true rule, in determining to embrace or reject 
anything, is not whether it have any evil in it, but 
whether it have more of evil than of good. There 
are few things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost 
everything, especially of government policy, is an 
inseparable compound of the two; so that our best 
judgment of the preponderance between them is 
continually demanded. On this principle the Presi- 
dent, his friends, and the world generally act on most 
subjects. Why not apply it, then, upon this ques- 
tion? Why, as to improvements, magnify the evil, 
and stoutly refuse to see any good in them ? 

Mr. Chairman, on the third position of the message 
— ^the constitutional question — I have not much to 
say. Being the man I am, and speaking where I do, 
I feel that in any attempt at an original constitu- 
tional argument I should not be and ought not to be 
listened to patiently. The ablest and the best of men 
have gone over the whole ground long ago. I shall 
attempt but little more than a brief notice of what 
some of them have said. In relation to Mr. Jeffer- 
son's views, I read from Mr. Polk's veto message: 

" President Jefferson, in his message to Congress in 
1806, recommended an amendment of the Consti- 



76 The Writings of 

tution, with a view to apply an anticipated surplus 
in the treasury * to the great purposes of the public 
education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other 
objects of public improvement as it may be thought 
proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of 
the federal powers'; and he adds: 'I suppose an 
amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the 
States, necessary, because the objects now recom- 
mended are not among those enumerated in the 
Constitution, and to which it permits the public 
moneys to be applied.' In 1825, he repeated in his 
published letters the opinion that no such power has 
been conferred upon Congress." 

I introduce this not to controvert just now the 
constitutional opinion, but to show that, on the ques- 
tion of expediency, Mr. Jefferson's opinion was 
against the present President; that this opinion of 
Mr. Jefferson, in one branch at least, is in the hands 
of Mr. Polk like McFingal's gun — "bears wide and 
kicks the owner over." 

But to the constitutional question. In 1826 
Chancellor Kent first published his Commentaries 
on American law. He devoted a portion of one of 
the lectures to the question of the authority of Con- 
gress to appropriate public moneys for internal im- 
provements. He mentions that the subject had 
never been brought under judicial consideration, 
and proceeds to give a brief summary of the discus- 
sion it had undergone between the legislative and 
executive branches of the government. He shows 
that the legislative branch had usually been for, 
and the executive against, the power, till the period 



Abraham Lincoln ']^ 

of Mr. J. Q. Adams's administration, at whicli point 
he considers the executive influence as withdrawn 
from opposition, and added to the support of the 
power. In 1844 "the chancellor published a new 
edition of his Commentaries, in which he adds some 
notes of what had transpired on the question since 
1826. I have not time to read the original text on 
the notes; but the whole may be foimd on page 267, 
and the two or three following pages, of the first 
volume of the edition of 1844. As to what Chan- 
cellor Kent seems to consider the sum of the whole, I 
read from one of the notes : 

' ' Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Con- 
stitution of the United States, Vol. II., pp. 429-440, 
and again pp. 519-538, has stated at large the argu- 
ments for and against the proposition that Congress 
have a constitutional authority to lay taxes and to 
apply the power to regulate commerce as a means 
directly to encourage and protect domestic manu- 
factures ; and without giving any opinion of his own 
on the contested doctrine, he has left the reader to 
draw his own conclusions. I should think, however, 
from the arguments as stated, that every mind which 
has taken no part in the discussion, and felt no pre- 
judice or territorial bias on either side of the question, 
would deem the arguments in favor of the Congres- 
sional power vastly superior." 

It will be seen that in this extract the power to 
make improvements is not directly mentioned; but 
by examining the context, both of Kent and Story, 
it will be seen that the power mentioned in the ex- 
tract and the power to make improvements are 



78 The Writings of 

regarded as identical. It is not to be denied that 
many great and good men have been against the 
power ; but it is insisted that quite as many, as great 
and as good, have been for it; and it is shown that, 
on a full survey of the whole, Chancellor Kent was of 
opinion that the arguments of the latter were vastly 
superior. This is but the opinion of a man ; but who 
was that man ? He was one of the ablest and most 
learned lawyers of his age, or of any age. It is no 
disparagement to Mr. Polk, nor indeed to any one 
who devotes much time to politics, to be placed far 
behind Chancellor Kent as a lawyer. His attitude 
was most favorable to correct conclusions. He 
wrote coolly, and in retirement. He was struggling 
to rear a durable monument of fame; and he well 
knew that truth and thoroughly sound reasoning 
were the only sure foundations. Can the party 
opinion of a party President on a law question, as 
this purely is, be at all compared or set in opposition 
to that of such a man, in such an attitude, as Chan- 
cellor Kent ? This constitutional question will prob- 
ably never be better settled than it is, until it shall 
pass under judicial consideration ; but I do think no 
man who is clear on the questions of expediency 
need feel his conscience much pricked upon this. 

Mr. Chairman, the President seems to think that 
enough may be done, in the way of improvements, 
by means of tonnage duties under State authority, 
with the consent of the General Government. Now 
I suppose this matter of tonnage duties is well enough 
in its own sphere. I suppose it may be efficient, and 
perhaps sufficient, to make slight improvements and 



Abraham Lincoln 79 

repairs in harbors already in use and not much out of 
repair. But if I have any correct general idea of it, 
it must be wholly inefficient for any general benefi- 
cent purposes of improvement. I know very little, 
or rather nothing at all, of the practical matter of 
levying and collecting tonnage duties ; but I suppose 
one of its principles must be to lay a duty for the im- 
provement of any particular harbor upon the tonnage 
coming into that harbor ; to do otherwise — to collect 
money in one harbor, to be expended on improve- 
ments in another — ^would be an extremely aggra- 
vated form of that inequality which the President 
so much deprecates. If I be right in this, how could 
we make any entirely new improvement by means 
of tonnage duties? How make a road, a canal, or 
clear a greatly obstructed river? The idea that we 
could involves the same absurdity as the Irish bull 
about the new boots. "I shall niver git 'em on," 
says Patrick, **till I wear 'em a day or two, and 
stretch 'em a little." We shall never make a canal 
by tonnage duties until it shall already have been 
made awhile, so the tonnage can get into it. 

After all, the President concludes that possibly 
there may be some great objects of improvement 
which cannot be effected by tonnage duties, and 
which it therefore may be expedient for the General 
Government to take in hand. Accordingly he 
suggests, in case any such be discovered, the pro- 
priety of amending the Constitution. Amend it for 
what? If, like Mr. Jefferson, the President thought 
improvements expedient, but not constitutional, it 
would be natural enough for him to recommend such 



8o The Writings of 

an amendment. But hear what he says in this very 
message : 

" In view of these portentous consequences, I can- 
not but think that this course of legislation should 
be arrested, even were there nothing to forbid it in 
the fundamental laws of our Union." 

For what, then, would he have the Constitution 
amended? With him it is a proposition to remove 
one impediment merely to be met by others which, 
in his opinion, cannot be removed, — to enable Con- 
gress to do what, in his opinion, they ought not to do 
if they could. 

Here Mr. Meade of Virginia inquired if Mr. Lincoln 
understood the President to be opposed, on grounds 
of expediency, to any and every improvement. 

Mr. Lincoln answered: In the very part of his 
message of which I am speaking, I understand him as 
giving some vague expression in favor of some 
possible objects of improvement; but in doing so I 
understand him to be directly on the teeth of his own 
arguments in other parts of it. Neither the Presi- 
dent nor any one can possibly specify an improve- 
ment which shall not be clearly liable to one or 
another of the objections he has urged on the score of 
expediency. I have shown, and might show again, 
that no work — no object — can be so general as to 
dispense its benefits with precise equality; and this 
inequality is chief among the "portentous conse- 
quences" for which he declares that improvements 
should be arrested. No, sir. When the President 
intimates that something in the way of improve- 
ments may properly be done by the General Govern- 



Abraham Lincoln 8i 

ment, he is shrinking from the conclusions to which 
his own arguments would force him. He feels that 
the improvements of this broad and goodly land are 
a mighty interest; and he is unwilling to confess to 
the people, or perhaps to himself, that he has built an 
argument which, when pressed to its conclusions, 
entirely annihilates this interest. 

I have already said that no one who is satisfied 
of the expediency of making improvements needs be 
much uneasy in his conscience about its constitu- 
tionality. I wish now to submit a few remarks on 
the general proposition of amending the Constitu- 
tion. As a general rule, I think we would much 
better let it alone. No slight occasion should tempt 
us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which 
may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, 
habituate ourselves to think of it as imalterable. 
It can scarcely be made better than it is. New pro- 
visions would introduce new difficulties, and thus 
create and increase appetite for further change. 
No, sir; let it stand as it is. New hands have never 
touched it. The men who made it have done their 
work, and have passed away. Who shall improve 
on what they did? 

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of reviewing this 
message in the least possible time, as well as for the 
sake of distinctness, I have analyzed its arguments 
as well as I could, and reduced them to the proposi- 
tions I have stated. I have now examined them in 
detail. I wish to detain the committee only a little 
while longer with some general remarks upon the 
subject of improvements. That the subject is a 

VOL. II. 6. 



82 The Writings of 

difficult one, cannot be denied. Still it is no more 
difficult in Congress than in the State Legislatures, 
in the counties, or in the smallest municipal districts 
which anyivhere exist. All can recur to instances of 
this difficulty in the case of county roads, bridges, 
and the like. One man is offended because a road 
passes over his land, and another is offended because 
it does not pass over his; one is dissatisfied because 
the bridge for which he is taxed crosses the river on a 
different road from that which leads from his house 
to town ; another cannot bear that the county should 
be got in debt for these same roads and bridges; 
while not a few struggle hard to have roads located 
over their lands, and then stoutly refuse to let them 
be opened until they are first paid the damages. 
Even between the different wards and streets of 
towns and cities we find this same wrangling and 
difficulty. Now these are no other than the very 
difficulties against which, and out of which, the Presi- 
dent constructs his objections of "inequality," 
"speculation," and "crushing the treasury." There 
is but a single alternative about them: they are 
sufficient, or they are not. If sufficient, they are 
sufficient out of Congress as well as in it, and there is 
the end. We must reject them as insufficient, or lie 
down and do nothing by any authority. Then, 
difficulty though there be, let us meet and encounter 
it. "Attempt the end, and never stand to doubt; 
nothing so hard, but search will find it out." Deter- 
mine that the thing can and shall be done, and then 
we shall find the way. The tendency to undue 
expansion is unquestionably the chief difficulty. 



Abraham Lincoln 8 



o 



How to do something, and still not do too much, is 
the desideratum. Let each contribute his mite in 
the way of suggestion. The late Silas Wright, in a 
letter to the Chicago convention, contributed his, 
which was worth something; and I now contribute 
mine, which may be worth nothing. At all events, it 
will mislead nobody, and therefore will do no harm. 
I would not borrow money. I am against an over- 
whelming, crushing system. Suppose that, at each 
session. Congress shall first determine how much 
money can, for that year, be spared for improve- 
ments; then apportion that sum to the most im- 
portant objects. So far all is easy; but how shall 
we determine which are the most important? On 
this question comes the collision of interests. I 
shall be slow to acknowledge that your harbor or 
your river is more important than mine, and vice 
versa. To clear this difficulty, let us have that same 
statistical information which the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Vinton] suggested at the beginning of this 
session. In that information we shall have a stem, 
unbending basis of facts — a basis in no wise subject 
to whim, caprice, or local interest. The prelimited 
amount of means will save us from doing too much, 
and the statistics will save us from doing what we do 
in wrong places. Adopt and adhere to this course, 
and, it seems to me, the difficulty is cleared. 

One of the gentlemen from South Carolina [Mr. 
Rhett] very much deprecates these statistics. He 
particularly objects, as I understand him, to coimt- 
ing all the pigs and chickens in the land. I do not 
perceive much force in the objection. It is true that 



84 The Writings of 

if everything be enumerated, a portion of such 
statistics may not be very useful to this object. 
Such products of the country as are to be consumed 
where they are produced need no roads or rivers, no 
means of transportation, and have no very proper 
connection with this subject. The surplus — ^that 
which is produced in one place to be consumed in 
another ; the capacity of each locality for producing 
a greater surplus; the natural means of transporta- 
tion, and their susceptibility of improvement; the 
hindrances, delays, and losses of life and property 
during transportation, and the causes of each, would 
be among the most valuable statistics in this con- 
nection. From these it would readily appear where 
a given amoimt of expenditure would do the most 
good. These statistics might be equally accessible, 
as they would be equally useful, to both the nation 
and the States. In this way, and by these means, 
let the nation take hold of the larger works, and the 
States the smaller ones; and thus, working in a 
meeting direction, discreetly, but steadily and firml}^ 
what is made imequal in one place may be equalized 
in another, extravagance avoided, and the whole 
country put on that career of prosperity which shall 
correspond with its extent of territory, its natural 
resources, and the intelligence and enterprise of its 
people. 



TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

Washington, June 22, 1848. 

Dear William : — ^Last night I was attending a sort 
of caucus of the Whig members, held in relation to 



Abraham Lincoln 85 

the coming Presidential election. The whole field of 
the nation was scanned, and all is high hope and 
confidence. Illinois is expected to better her condi- 
tion in this race. Under these circumstances, judge 
how heartrending it was to come to my room and 
find and read your discouraging letter of the 15th. 
We have made no gains, but have lost "H. R. 
Robinson, Turner, Campbell, and four or five more." 
Tell Amey to reconsider, if he w^ould be saved. 
Baker and I used to do something, but I think you 
attach more importance to our absence than is just. 
There is another cause. In 1840, for instance, we 
had two senators and five representatives in Sanga- 
mon; now we have part of one senator and two 
representatives. With quite one third more people 
than we had then, we have only half the sort of 
offices which are sought by men of the speaking sort 
of talent. This, I think, is the chief cause. Now, 
as to the young men. You must not wait to be 
brought forward by the older men. For instance, 
do you suppose that I should ever have got into 
notice if I had waited to be hunted up and pushed 
forward by older men? You young men get 
together and form a "Rough and Ready Club," 
and have regular meetings and speeches. Take in 
everybody you can get. Harrison Grimsley, L. A. 
Enos, Lee Kimball, and C. W. Matheny will do to 
begin the thing; but as you go along gather up all 
the shrewd, wild boys about town, whether just of 
age, or a little under age, — Chris. Logan, Reddick 
Ridgely, Lewis Zwizler, and hundreds such. Let 
every one play the part he can play best, — some 



86 The Writings of 

speak, some sing, and all "holler." Your meetings 
will be of evenings; the older men, and the women, 
will go to hear you; so that it will not only con- 
tribute to the election of "Old Zach," but will be 
an interesting pastime, and improving to the intel- 
lectual faculties of all engaged. Don't fail to do this. 

You ask me to send you all the speeches made 
about "Old Zach," the war, etc. Now this makes 
me a little impatient. I have regularly sent you the 
Congressional Globe and Appendix, and you cannot 
have examined them, or you would have discovered 
that they contain every speech made by every man 
in both houses of Congress,. on every subject, during 
the session. Can I send any more? Can I send 
speeches that nobody has made ? Thinking it would 
be most natural that the newspapers would feel in- 
terested to give at least some of the speeches to their 
readers, I at the beginning of the session made 
arrangements to have one copy of the Globe and 
Appendix regularly sent to each Whig paper of the 
district. And yet, with the exception of my own 
little speech, which was published in two only of the 
then five, now four, Whig papers, I do not remember 
having seen a single speech, or even extract from one, 
in any single one of those papers. With equal and 
full means on both sides, I will venture that the 
State Register has thrown before its readers more of 
Locofoco speeches in a month than all the Whig 
papers of the district have done of Whig speeches 
during the session. 

If you wish a full understanding of the war, I 
repeat what I believe I said to you in a letter once 



Abraham Lincoln 87 

before, that the whole, or nearly so, is to be found in 
the speech of Dixon of Connecticut. This I sent you 
in pamphlet as well as in the Globe. Examine and 
study every sentence of that speech thoroughly, 
and you will imderstand the whole subject. You 
ask how Congress came to declare that war had 
existed by the act of Mexico. Is it possible you 
don't understand that yet? You have at least 
twenty speeches in your possession that fully explain 
it. I will, however, try it once more. The news 
reached Washington of the commencement of hos- 
tilities on the Rio Grande, and of the great peril of 
General Taylor's army. Everybody, Whigs and 
Democrats, was for sending them aid, in men and 
money. It was necessary to pass a bill for this. 
The Locos had a majority in both houses, and they 
brought in a bill with a preamble saying: Whereas, 
War exists by the act of Mexico, therefore we send 
General Taylor money. The Whigs moved to strike 
out the preamble, so that they could vote to send the 
men and money, without saying anything about how 
the war commenced ; but being in the minority, they 
were voted down, and the preamble was retained. 
Then, on the passage of the bill, the question came 
upon them, Shall we vote for preamble and bill 
together, or against both together? They did not 
want to vote against sending help to General Taylor, 
and therefore they voted for both together. Is there 
any difficulty in understanding this ? Even my lit- 
tle speech shows how this was; and if you will go 
to the library, you may get the Journal of 1845-46, 
in which you will find the whole for yourself. 



88 The Writings of 

We have nothing pubHshed yet with special refer- 
ence to the Taylor race ; but we soon will have, and 
then I will send them to everybody. I made an 
internal-improvement speech day before yesterday, 
which I shall send home as soon as I can get it 
written out and printed, — and which I suppose 
nobody will read. 

Your friend as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

JUNE 28, 1848. 

Discussion as to salary of judge of western Virginia. 
— ^Wishing to increase it from $1800 to $2500. 

Mr. Lincoln said he felt unwilling to be either 
unjust or ungenerous, and he wanted to understand 
the real case of this judicial officer. The gentleman 
from Virginia had stated that he had to hold eleven 
courts. Now everybody knew that it was not the 
habit of the district judges of the United States in 
other States to hold anything like that number of 
courts ; and he therefore took it for granted that this 
must happen under a peculiar law which required 
that large number of courts to be holden every year ; 
and these laws, he further supposed, were passed at 
the request of the people of that judicial district. It 
came, then, to this: that the people in the western 
district of Virginia had got eleven courts to be held 
among them in one year, for their own accommo- 
dation ; and being thus better accommodated than 



Abraham Lincoln 89 

neighbors elsewhere, they wanted their judge to be a 
little better paid. In Illinois there had been until 
the present season but one district court held in the 
year. There were now to be two. Could it be that 
the western district of Virginia furnished more busi- 
ness for a judge than the whole State of Illinois? 



JULY, 1848. FRAGMENT.! 

The question of a national bank is at rest. Were 
I President, I should not urge its reagitation upon 
Congress; but should Congress see fit to pass an act 
to establish such an institution, I should not arrest 
it by the veto, unless I should consider it subject to 
some constitutional objection from which I believe 
the two former banks to have been free. 



TO W. H. HERNDON. 

Washington, July lo, 1848. 

Dear William : 

Your letter covering the newspaper slips was 
received last night. The subject of that letter is 
exceedingly painful to me, and I cannot but think 
there is some mistake in your impression of the 
motives of the old men. I suppose I am now one of 
the old men ; and I declare on my veracity, which I 
think is good with you, that nothing could afford me 

' This paper gives what Lincoln thought General Taylor ought to 
say. 



90 The Writings of 

more satisfaction than to learn that you and others 
of my young friends at home were doing battle in the 
contest and endearing themselves to the people and 
taking a stand far above any I have ever been 
able to reach in their admiration. I cannot conceive 
that other men feel differently. Of course I cannot 
demonstrate what I say; but I was young once, and 
I am sure I was never ungenerously thrust back. I 
hardly know what to say. The way for a young 
man to rise is to improve himself every way he can, 
never suspecting that anybody wishes to hinder him. 
Allow me to assure you that suspicion and jealousy 
never did help any man in any situation. There 
may sometimes be ungenerous attempts to keep a 
young man down; and they will succeed, too, if he 
allows his mind to be diverted from its true channel 
to brood over the attempted injury. Cast about and 
see if this feeling has not injured every person you 
have ever known to fall into it. 

Now, in what I have said I am sure you will sus- 
pect nothing but sincere friendship. I would save 
you from a fatal error. You have been a laborious, 
studious young man. You are far better informed 
on almost all subjects than I ever have been. You 
cannot fail in any laudable object unless you allow 
your mind to be improperly directed. I have some 
the advantage of you in the world's experience, 
merely by being older; and it is this that induces 
me to advise. You still seem to be a little mistaken 
about the Congressional Globe and Appendix. They 
contain all of the speeches that are published in any 
way. My speech and Dayton's speech which you 



Abraham Lincoln 91 

say you got in pamphlet form are both word for word 
in the Appendix. I repeat again, all are there. 

Your friend, as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
JULY 27, 1848. 

General Taylor and the Veto. 

Mr. Speaker, our Democratic friends seem to be in 
great distress because they think our candidate for 
the Presidency don't suit us. Most of them cannot 
find out that General Taylor has any principles at all ; 
some, however, have discovered that he has one, but 
that one is entirely wrong. This one principle is his 
position on the veto power. The gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Stanton] who has just taken his seat, 
indeed, has said there is very little, if any, difference 
on this question between General Taylor and all the 
Presidents ; and he seems to think it sufficient detrac- 
tion from General Taylor's position on it that it has 
nothing new in it. But all others whom I have heard 
speak assail it furiously. A new member from 
Kentucky [Mr. Clark], of very considerable ability, 
was in particular concerned about it. He thought it 
altogether novel and unprecedented for a President 
or a Presidential candidate to think of approving bills 
whose constitutionality may not be entirely clear to 
his own mind. He thinks the ark of our safety is 
gone unless Presidents shall always veto such bills 



92 The Writings of 

as in their judgment may be of doubtful constitu- 
tionality. However clear Congress may be on their 
authority to pass any particular act, the gentleman 
from Kentucky thinks the President must veto it if 
he has doubts about it. Now I have neither time nor 
inclination to argue with the gentleman on the veto 
power as an original question; but I wish to show 
that General Taylor, and not he, agrees with the 
earlier statesmen on this question. When the bill 
chartering the first Bank of the United States passed 
Congress, its constitutionality was questioned. Mr. 
Madison, then in the House of Representatives, as 
well as others, had opposed it on that ground. 
General Washington, as President, was called on to 
approve or reject it. He sought and obtained on 
the constitutionality question the separate writ- 
ten opinions of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Edmund 
Randolph, — they then being respectively Secretary 
of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney- 
General. Hamilton's opinion was for the power; 
while Randolph's and Jefferson's were both against 
it. Mr. Jefferson, after giving his opinion deciding 
only against the constitutionality of the bill, closes 
his letter with the paragraph which I now read : 

" It must be admitted, however, that unless the 
President's mind, on a view of ever3rthing which is 
urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that 
it is imauthorized by the Constitution, — if the pro 
and con. hang so even as to balance his judgment, — 
a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would 
naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. 
It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by 



Abraham Lincoln 93 

error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution 
has placed a check in the negative of the President. 

" Thomas Jefferson. 

"February 15, 1791." 

General Taylor's opinion, as expressed in his 
Allison letter, is as I now read: 

"The power given by the veto is a high con- 
servative power; but, in my opinion, should never be 
exercised except in cases of clear violation of the 
Constitution, or manifest haste and want of consider- 
ation by Congress." 

It is here seen that, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, if 
on the constitutionality of any given bill the Presi- 
dent doubts, he is not to veto it, as the gentleman 
from Kentucky would have him do, but is to defer 
to Congress and approve it. And if we compare 
the opinion of Jefferson and Taylor, as expressed in 
these paragraphs, we shall find them more exactly 
alike than we can often find any two expressions 
having any literal difference. None but interested 
faultfinders, I think, can discover any substantial 
variation. 

But gentlemen on the other side are unanimously 
agreed that General Taylor has no other principles. 
They are in utter darkness as to his opinions on any 
of the questions of policy which occupy the public 
attention. But is there any doubt as to what he will 
do on the prominent questions if elected? Not the 
least. It is not possible to know what he will or 
would do in every imaginable case, because many 
questions have passed away, and others doubtless 



94 The Writino;-s of 



will arise which none of us have yet thought of ; but 
on the prominent questions of currency, tariff, inter- 
nal improvements, and Wilmot Proviso, General 
Taylor's course is at least as well defined as is Gen- 
eral Cass's. Why, in their eagerness to get at Gen- 
eral Taylor, several Democratic members here have 
desired to know whether, in case of his election, a 
bankrupt law is to be established. Can they tell 
us General Cass's opinion on this question? [Some 
member answered, "He is against it."] Aye, how 
do you know he is ? There is nothing about it in the 
platform, nor elsewhere, that I have seen. If the 
gentleman knows of anything which I do not know 
he can show it. But to return. General Taylor, in 
his Allison letter, says : 

" Upon the subject of the tariff, the currency, the 
improvement of our great highways, rivers, lakes, 
and harbors, the will of the people, as expressed 
through their representatives in Congress, ought to 
be respected and carried out by the executive." 

Now this is the whole matter. In substance, it is 
this : The people say to General Taylor, "If you are 
elected, shall we have a national bank?" He 
answers, "Your will, gentlemen, not mine." "What 
about the tariff?" "Say yourselves." "Shall our 
rivers and harbors be improved?" "Just as you 
please. If you desire a bank, an alteration of the 
tariff, internal improvements, any or all, I will not 
hinder you. If you do not desire them, I will not 
attempt to force them on you. Send up your 
members of Congress from the various districts, 
with opinions according to your own, and if they are 



Abraham Lincoln 95 

for these measures, or any of them, I shall have 
nothing to oppose ; if they are not for them, I shall 
not, by any appliances whatever, attempt to dragoon 
them into their adoption." Now can there be any 
difficulty in understanding this? To you Demo- 
crats it may not seem like principle ; but surely you 
cannot fail to perceive the position plainty enough. 
The distinction between it and the position of your 
candidate is broad and obvious, and I admit you 
have a clear right to show it is wrong if you can; 
but you have no right to pretend you cannot see it 
at all. We see it, and to us it appears like principle, 
and the best sort of principle at that — the principle 
of allowing the people to do as they please with their 
own business. My friend from Indiana [C. B. Smith] 
has aptly asked, "Are you willing to trust the 
people ? " Some of you answered substantially, "We 
are willing to trust the people ; but the President is as 
much the representative of the people as Congress." 
In a certain sense, and to a certain extent, he is the 
representative of the people. He is elected by them, 
as well as Congress is; but can he, in the nature of 
things, know the wants of the people as well as three 
hundred other men, coming from all the various 
localities of the nation ? If so, where is the propriety 
of having a Congress? That the Constitution gives 
the President a negative on legislation, all know; 
but that this negative should be so combined with 
platforms and other appliances as to enable him, and 
in fact almost compel him, to take the whole of legis- 
lation into his own hands, is what we object to, is what 
General Taylor objects to, and is what constitutes 



96 The Writings of 

the broad distinction between you and us. To thus 
transfer legislation is clearly to take it from those 
who understand with minuteness the interests of 
the people, and give it to one who does not and 
cannot so well understand it. I understand your 
idea that if a Presidential candidate avow his opinion 
upon a given question, or rather upon all questions, 
and the people, with full knowledge of this, elect him, 
they thereby distinctly approve all those opinions. 
By means of it, measures are adopted or rejected con- 
trary to the wishes of the whole of one party, and 
often nearly half of the other. Three, four, or half/* 
a dozen questions are prominent at a given time ; the 
party selects its candidate, and he takes his position 
on each of these questions. On all but one his 
positions have already been indorsed at former 
elections, and his party fully committed to them; 
but that one is new, and a large portion of them are 
against it. But what are they to do? The whole 
was stnmg together; and they must take all, or 
reject all. They cannot take what they like, and 
leave the rest. What they are already committed 
to being the majority, they shut their eyes, and 
gulp the whole. Next election, still another is intro- 
duced in the same way. If we run our eyes along 
the line of the past, we shall see that almost if not 
quite all the articles of the present Democratic creed 
have been at first forced upon the party in this very 
way. And just now, and just so, opposition to 
internal improvements is to be established if General 
Cass shall be elected. Almost half the Democrats 
here are for improvements; but they will vote for 



Abraham Lincoln 97 

Cass, and if he succeeds, their vote will have aided in 
closing the doors against improvements. Now this 
is a process which we think is wrong. We prefer a 
candidate who, like General Taylor, will allow the 
people to have their own way, regardless of his pri- 
vate opinions; and I should think the internal-im- 
provement Democrats, at least, ought to prefer such 
a candidate. He would force nothing on them which 
they don't want, and he would allow them to have 
improvements which their own candidate, if elected, 
will not. 

Mr. Speaker, I have said General Taylor's position 
is as well defined as is that of General Cass. In 
saying this, I admit I do not certainly know what he 
would do on the Wilmot Proviso. I am a Northern 
man, or rather a Western free-State man, with a 
const itutency I believe to be, and with personal 
feelings I know to be, against the extension of 
slavery. As such, and with what information I 
have, I hope and believe General Taylor, if elected, 
would not veto the proviso. But I do not know it. 
Yet if I knew he would, I still would vote for him. I 
should do so because, in my judgment, his election 
alone can defeat General Cass; and because, should 
slavery thereby go to the territory we now have, 
just so much will certainly happen by the election 
of Cass, and in addition a course of policy leading 
to new wars, new acquisitions of territory and still 
further extensions of slavery. One of the two is to 
be President. Which is preferable ? 

But there is as much doubt of Cass on improve- 
ments as there is of Taylor on the proviso. I have 



98 The Writings of 

no doubt myself of General Cass on this question; 
but I know the Democrats differ among themselves 
as to his position. My internal-improvement col- 
league [Mr. Wentworth] stated on this floor the other 
day that he was satisfied Cass was for improvements, 
because he had voted for all the bills that he [Mr. 
Wentworth] had. So far so good. But Mr. Polk 
vetoed some of these very bills. The Baltimore 
convention passed a set of resolutions, among other 
things, approving these vetoes, and General Cass 
declares, in his letter accepting the nomination, that 
he has carefully read these resolutions, and that he 
adheres to them as firmly as he approves them 
cordially. In other words, General Cass voted for 
the bills, and thinks the President did right to veto 
them; and his friends here are amiable enough to 
consider him as being on one side or the other, just 
as one or the other may correspond with their own 
respective inclinations. My colleague admits that 
the platform declares against the constitutionality 
of a general system of improvements, and that 
General Cass indorses the platform; but he still 
thinks General Cass is in favor of some sort of im- 
provements. Well, what are they ? As he is against 
general objects, those he is for must be particular 
and local. Now this is taking the subject precisely 
by the wrong end. Particularity — expending the 
money of the whole people for an object which will 
benefit only a portion of them — is the greatest real 
objection to improvements, and has been so held by 
General Jackson, Mr. Polk, and all others, I believe, 
till now. But now, behold, the objects most general 



Abraham Lincoln 99 

— nearest free from this objection — are to be re- 
jected, while those most Hable to it are to be embraced. 
To return: I cannot help believing that General 
Cass, when he wrote his letter of acceptance, well 
understood he was to be claimed by the advocates 
of both sides of this question, and that he then 
closed the door against all further expressions of 
opinion purposely to retain the benefits of that 
double position. His subsequent equivocation at 
Cleveland, to my mind, proves such to have been 
the case. 

One word more, and I shall have done with this 
branch of the subject. You Democrats, and your 
candidate, in the main are in favor of laying down in 
advance a platform — a set of party positions — as a 
unit, and then of forcing the people, by every sort 
of appliance, to ratify them, however unpalatable 
some of them may be. We and our candidate are in 
favor of making Presidential elections and the legis- 
lation of the country distinct matters; so that the 
people can elect whom they please, and afterward 
legislate just as they please, without any hindrance, 
save only so much as may guard against infractions 
of the Constitution, undue haste, and want of con- 
sideration. The difference between us is clear as 
noonday. That we are right we cannot doubt. We 
hold the true Republican position. In leaving the 
people's business in their hands, we cannot be wrong. 
We are willing, and even anxious, to go to the people 
on this issue. 

But I suppose I cannot reasonably hope to con- 
vince you that we have any principles. The most 



loo The Writings of 

I can expect is to assure you that we think we have 
and are quite contented with them. The other day 
one of the gentlemen from Georgia [Mr. Iverson], an 
eloquent man, and a man of learning, so far as I can 
judge, not being learned myself, came down upon 
us astonishingly. He spoke in what the Baltimore 
American calls the "scathing and withering style." 
At the end of his second severe flash I was struck 
blind, and found m3^self feeling with my fingers for an 
assurance of my continued existence. A little of the 
bone was left, and I gradually revived. He eulo- 
gized Mr. Clay in high and beautiful terms, and then 
declared that we had deserted all our principles, 
and had turned Henry Clay out, like an old horse, to 
root. This is terribly severe. It cannot be answered 
by argument — at least I cannot so answer it. I 
merely wish to ask the gentleman if the Whigs are the 
only party he can think of who sometimes turn old 
horses out to root. Is not a certain Martin Van 
Buren an old horse which your own party have 
turned out to root ? and is he not rooting a little to 
your discomfort about now ? But in not nominating 
Mr. Clay we deserted our principles, you say. Ah! 
In what ? Tell us, ye men of principle, what principle 
we violated. We say you did violate principle in 
discarding Van Buren, and we can tell you how. 
You violated the primary, the cardinal, the one great 
living principle of all democratic representative 
government — ^the principle that the representative 
is bound to carry out the known will of his constit- 
uents. A large majority of the Baltimore conven- 
tion of 1844 were, by their constituents, instructed 



Abraham Lincoln loi 

to procure Van Buren's nomination if they could. 
In violation — in utter glaring contempt — of this, 
you rejected him; rejected him, as the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Birdsall] the other day expressly 
admitted, for availability — that same ' ' general avail- 
ability" which you charge upon us, and daily chew 
over here, as something exceedingly odious and un- 
principled. But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr, 
Iverson] gave us a second speech yesterday, all well 
considered and put down in writing, in which Van 
Buren was scathed and withered a "few" for his 
present position and movements. I cannot remem- 
ber the gentleman's precise language; but I do re- 
member he put Van Buren down, down, till he got 
him where he was finally to "stink" and "rot." 

Mr. Speaker, it is no business or inclination of 
mine to defend Martin Van Buren in the war of 
extermination now waging between him and his old 
admirers. I say, "Devil take the hindmost" — and 
the foremost. But there is no mistaking the origin 
of the breach; and if the curse of "stinking" and 
"rotting" is to fall on the first and greatest violators 
of principle in the matter, I disinterestedly suggest 
that the gentleman from Georgia and his present co- 
workers are bound to take it upon themselves. But 
the gentleman from Georgia further says we have 
deserted all our principles, and taken shelter under 
General Taylor's military coat-tail, and he seems to 
think this is exceedingly degrading. Well, as his 
faith is, so be it unto him. But can he remember 
no other military coat-tail under which a certain 
other party have been sheltering for near a quarter 



I02 The Writings of 

of a century? Has he no acquaintance with the 
ample mihtary coat-tail of General Jackson? Does 
he not know that his own party have run the five 
last Presidential races under that coat-tail, and 
that they are now running the sixth under the same 
cover? Yes, sir, that coat-tail was used not only 
for General Jackson himself, but has been clung to, 
with the grip of death, by every Democratic candi- 
date since. You have never ventured, and dare not 
now venture, from under it. Your campaign papers 
have constantly been "Old Hickories," with rude 
likenesses of the old general upon them; hickory 
poles and hickory brooms your never-ending em- 
blems; Mr. Polk himself was "Young Hickory," or 
something so; and even now your campaign paper 
here is proclaiming that Cass and Butler are of the 
true "Hickory stripe." Now, sir, you dare not 
give it up. Like a horde of hungry ticks you have 
stuck to the tail of the Hermitage lion to the end of 
his life ; and you are still sticking to it, and drawing a 
loathsome sustenance from it, after he is dead. A 
fellow once advertised that he had made a discovery 
by which he could make a new man out of an old one, 
and have enough of the stuff left to make a little 
yellow dog. Just such a discovery has General 
Jackson's popularity been to you. You not only 
twice made President of him out of it, but you have 
had enough of the stuff left to make Presidents of 
several comparatively small men since; and it is 
your chief reliance now to make still another. 

Mr. Speaker, old horses and military coat-tails, or 
tails of any sort, are not figures of speech such as I 



Abraham Lincoln 103 

would be the first to introduce into discussions here ; 
but as the gentleman from Georgia has thought fit 
to introduce them, he and you are welcome to all 
you have made, or can make by them. If you have 
any more old horses, trot them out; any more tails, 
just cock them and come at us. I repeat, I would 
not introduce this mode of discussion here; but I 
wish gentlemen on the other side to understand that 
the use of degrading figures is a game at which they 
may not find themselves able to take all the winnings. 
["We give it up!"] Aye, you give it up, and well 
you may; but for a very different reason from that 
which you would have us understand. The point — 
the power to hurt — of all figures consists in the 
truthfulness of their application; and, understand- 
ing this, you may well give it up. They are weapons 
which hit you, but miss us. 

But in my hurry I was very near closing this sub- 
ject of military tails before I was done with it. There 
is one entire article of the sort I have not discussed 
yet, — I mean the military tail you Democrats are 
now engaged in dovetailing into the great Michi- 
gander. Yes, sir; all his biographies (and they are 
legion) have him in hand, tying him to a military 
tail, like so many mischievous bo3^s tying a dog to a 
bladder of beans. True, the material they have is 
very limited, but they drive at it might and main. 
He wvaded Canada without resistance, and he otit- 
vaded it without pursuit. As he did both under 
orders, I suppose there was to him neither credit nor 
discredit in them; but they constitute a large part 
of the tail. He was not at Hull's surrender, but he 



I04 The Writings of 

was close by; he was volunteer aid to General 
Harrison on the day of the battle of the Thames; 
and as you said in 1 840 Harrison was picking huckle- 
berries two miles off while the battle was fought, I 
suppose it is a just conclusion with you to say Cass 
was aiding Harrison to pick huckleberries. This is 
about all, except the mooted question of the broken 
sword. Some authors say he broke it, some say he 
threw it away, and some others, who ought to know, 
say nothing about it. Perhaps it would be a fair 
historical compromise to say, if he did not break it, 
he did not do anything else with it. 

By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a 
military hero? Yes, sir; in the days of the Black 
Hawk war I fought, bled, and came away. Speaking 
of General Cass's career reminds me of my own. I 
was not at Stillman's defeat, but I was about as near 
it as Cass was to Hull's surrender; and, like him, I 
saw the place very soon afterward. It is quite cer- 
tain I did not break my sword, for I had none to 
break; but I bent a musket pretty badly on one 
occasion. If Cass broke his sword, the idea is he 
broke it in desperation; I bent the musket by acci- 
dent. If General Cass went in advance of me in 
picking huckleberries, I guess I surpassed him in 
charges upon the wild onions. If he saw any live, 
fighting Indians, it was more than I did; but I had 
a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes, 
and although I never fainted from the loss of blood, I 
can truly say I was often very hungry. Mr. Speaker, 
if I should ever conclude to doff whatever our Demo- 
cratic friends may suppose there is of black-cockade 



Abraham Lincoln 105 

federalism about me, and therefore they shall take 
me up as their candidate for the Presidency, I pro- 
test they shall not make fun of me, as they have of 
General Cass, by attempting to write me into a 
military hero. 

While I have General Cass in hand, I wish to say a 
word about his political principles. As a specimen, 
I take the record of his progress in the Wilmot Pro- 
viso. In the Washington Union of March 2, 1847, 
there is a report of a speech of General Cass, made the 
day before in the Senate, on the Wilmot Proviso, dur- 
ing the delivery of which Mr. Miller of New Jersey is 
reported to have interrupted him as follows, to wit : 

"Mr. Miller expressed his great surprise at the 
change in the sentiments of the Senator from Michi- 
gan, who had been regarded as the great champion 
of freedom in the Northwest, of which he was a dis- 
tinguished ornament. Last year the Senator from 
Michigan was imderstood to be decidedly in favor of 
the Wilmot Proviso; and as no reason had been 
stated for the change, he [Mr. Miller] could not re- 
frain from the expression of his extreme surprise." 

To this General Cass is reported to have replied as 
follows, to wit: 

" Mr. Cass said that the course of the Senator from 
New Jersey was most extraordinary. Last year he 
[Mr. Cass] should have voted for the proposition, had 
it come up. But circumstances had altogether 
changed. The honorable Senator then read several 
passages from the remarks, as given above, which 
he had committed to writing, in order to refute such 
a charge as that of the Senator from New Jersey." 



io6 The Writings of 

In the "remarks above reduced to writing" is 
one numbered four, as follows, to wit : 

" Fourth. Legislation now would be wholly in- 
operative, because no territory hereafter to be ac- 
quired can be governed without an act of Congress 
providing for its government; and such an act, on 
its passage, would open the whole subject, and leave 
the Congress called on to pass it free to exercise its 
own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by any declara- 
tion found on the statute-book." 

In Niles's Register, vol. Ixxiii., p. 293, there is 

a letter of General Cass to Nicholson, of 

Nashville, Tennessee, dated December 24, 1847, 
from which the following are correct extracts: 

" The Wilmot Proviso has been before the country 
some time. It has been repeatedly discussed in Con- 
gress and by the public press. I am strongly im- 
pressed with the opinion that a great change has been 
going on in the public mind upon this subject, — in my 
own as well as others', — and that doubts are resolv- 
ing themselves into convictions that the principle it 
involves should be kept out of the national legisla- 
ture, and left to the people of the confederacy in 
their respective local governments. . . . Briefly, 
then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction 
by Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of 
leaving the people of any territory which may be 
hereafter acquired the right to regulate it themselves, 
under the general principles of the Constitution. 
Because — 

"First. I do not see in the Constitution any grant 
of the requisite power to Congress; and I am not 



Abraham Lincoln 107 

disposed to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its 
necessity, — the establishment of territorial govern- 
ments when needed, — ^leaving to the inhabitants all 
the right compatible with the relations they bear to 
the confederation." 

These extracts show that in 1846 General Cass 
was for the proviso at once; that in March, 1847, he 
was still for it, but not just then; and that in 
December, 1847, he was against it altogether. This 
is a true index to the whole man. When the ques- 
tion was raised in 1846, he was in a blustering hurry 
to take ground for it. He sought to be in advance, 
and to avoid the uninteresting position of a mere 
follower; but soon he began to see glimpses of the 
great Democratic ox-goad waving in his face, and to 
hear indistinctly a voice saying, "Back! Back, sir! 
Back a little!" He shakes his head, and bats his 
eyes, and blunders back to his position of March, 
1847; but still the goad waves, and the voice grows 
more distinct and sharper still, "Back, sir! Back, 
I say! Further back!" — and back he goes to the 
position of December, 1847, at which the goad is still, 
and the voice soothingly says, " So ! Stand at that ! ' ' 

Have no fears, gentlemen, of your candidate. He 
exactly suits you, and we congratulate you upon it. 
However much you may be distressed about our 
candidate, you have all cause to be contented and 
happy with your own. If elected, he may not main- 
tain all or even any of his positions previously taken ; 
but he will be sure to do whatever the party exigency 
for the time being may require ; and that is precisely 
what you want. He and Van Buren are the same 



io8 The Writings of 

"manner of men"; and, like Van Buren, he will 
never desert you till you first desert him. 

Mr. Speaker, I adopt the suggestion of a friend, 
that General Cass is a general of splendidly suc- 
cessful charges — charges, to be sure, not upon the 
public enemy, but upon the public treasury. He 
was Governor of Michigan Territory, and ex-officio 
Superintendent of Indian Affairs, from the 9th of 
October, 1813, till the 31st of July, 1831 — a period of 
seventeen years, nine months, and twenty-two days. 
During this period he received from the United States 
treasury, for personal services and personal expenses, 
the aggregate sum of ninety-six thousand and twenty 
eight dollars, being an average of fourteen dollars 
and seventy-nine cents per day for every day of the 
time. This large sum was reached by assuming that 
he was doing service at several different places, and 
in several different capacities in the same place, all 
at the same time. By a correct analysis of his ac- 
counts during that period, the following proposi- 
tions may be deduced : 

First. He was paid in three different capacities 
during the whole of the time: that is to say — (i) As 
governor a salary at the rate per year of $2000. (2) 
As estimated for office rent, clerk hire, fuel, etc., in 
superintendence of Indian affairs in Michigan, at the 
rate per year of $1500. (3) As compensation and 
expenses for various miscellaneous items of Indian 
service out of Michigan, an average per year of $625. 

Second. During part of the time — that is, from 
the 9th of October, 1813, to the 29th of May, 1822 — 
he was paid in four different capacities ; that is to say, 



Abraham Lincoln 109 

the three as above, and, in addition thereto, the 
commutation of ten rations per day, amounting per 
year to $730. 

Third. During another part of the time — ^that is, 
from the beginning of 1 8 2 2 to the 3 1 st of July, 1 83 1 — 
he was also paid in four different capacities; that is 
to say, the first three, as above (the rations being 
dropped after the 29th of May, 1822), and, in addi- 
tion thereto, for superintending Indian Agencies at 
Piqua, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and Chicago, 
Illinois, at the rate per year of $1500. It should be 
observed here that the last item, commencing at the 
beginning of 1822, and the item of rations, ending 
on the 29th of May, 1822, lap on each other during 
so much of the time as lies between those two dates. 

Fourth. Still another part of the time — ^that is, 
from the 31st of October, 1821, to the 29th of May, 
1822 — ^he was paid in six different capacities; that 
is to say, the three first, as above ; the item of rations, 
as above; and, in addition thereto, another item of 
ten rations per day while at Washington settling his 
accounts, being at the rate per year of $730; and 
also an allowance for expenses travelling to and from 
Washington, and while there, of $1022, being at the 
rate per year of $1793. 

Fifth. And yet during the little portion of the 
time which lies between the ist of January, 1822, and 
the 29th of May, 1822, he was paid in seven different 
capacities ; that is to say, the six last mentioned, and 
also, at the rate of $1500 per year, for the Piqua, 
Fort Wayne, and Chicago service, as mentioned 
above. 



no The Writings of 

These accounts have already been discussed some 
here; but when we are amongst them, as when we 
are in the Patent Office, we must peep about a good 
deal before we can see all the curiosities. I shall not 
be tedious with them. As to the large item of $1500 
per year — ^amounting in the aggregate to $26,715 — 
for office rent, clerk hire, fuel, etc., I barely wish to 
remark that, so far as I can discover in the public 
documents, there is no evidence, by word or infer- 
ence, either from any disinterested witness or of 
General Cass himself, that he ever rented or kept a 
separate office, ever hired or kept a clerk, or even 
used any extra amount of fuel, etc., in consequence of 
his Indian services. Indeed, General Cass's entire 
silence in regard to these items, in his two long letters 
urging his claims upon the government, is, to my 
mind, almost conclusive that no such claims had any 
real existence. 

But I have introduced General Cass's accounts 
here chiefly to show the wonderful physical capacities 
of the man. They show that he not only did the 
labor of several men at the same time, but that he 
often did it at several places, many hundreds of miles 
apart, at the same time. And at eating, too, his 
capacities are shown to be quite as wonderful. From 
October, 1 821, to May, 1822, he eat ten rations a day 
in Michigan, ten rations a day here in Washington, 
and near five dollars' worth a day on the road 
between the two places! And then there is an im- 
portant discovery in his example — the art of being 
paid for what one eats, instead of having to pay for it. 
Hereafter if any nice young man should owe a bill 



Abraham Lincoln iii 

which he cannot pay in any other way, he can just 
board it out. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the 
animal standing in doubt between two stacks of hay 
and starving to death. The like of that would never 
happen to General Cass. Place the stacks a thou- 
sand miles apart, he would stand stock-still midway 
between them, and eat them both at once, and the 
green grass along the line would be apt to suffer 
some, too, at the same time. By all means make 
him President, gentlemen. He will feed you boun- 
teously — if — if there is any left after he shall have 
helped himself. 

But, as General Taylor is, par excellence, the hero 
of the Mexican War, and as you Democrats say we 
Whigs have always opposed the war, you think it 
must be very awkward and embarrassing for us 
to go for General Taylor. The declaration that we 
have always opposed the war is true or false, accord- 
ing as one may understand the term "oppose the 
war." If to say "the war was unnecessarily and un- 
constitutionally commenced by the President" be 
opposing the war, then the Whigs have very gener- 
ally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, 
they have said this; and they have said it on what 
has appeared good reason to them. The marching 
an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican set- 
tlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving 
their growing crops and other property to destruction, 
to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, un- 
provoking procedure; but it does not appear so to 
us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other 
than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of 



1 1 2 The Writings of 

it accordingly. But if, when the war had begun, and 
had become the cause of the country, the giving of 
our money and our blood, in common with yours, 
was support of the war, then it is not true that we 
have always opposed the war. With few individual 
exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here 
for all the necessary supplies. And, more than this, 
you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of 
our political brethren in every trial and on every 
field. The beardless boy and the mature man, the 
humble and the distinguished — ^you have had them. 
Through suffering and death, by disease and in battle 
they have endured and fought and fell with you. 
Clay and Webster each gave a son, never to be re- 
turned. From the State of my own residence, be- 
sides other worthy but less known Whig names, we 
sent Marshall, Morrison, Baker, and Hardin; they 
all fought, and one fell, and in the fall of that one we 
lost our best Whig man. Nor were the Whigs few 
in number, or laggard in the day of danger. In that 
fearful, bloody, breathless struggle at Buena Vista, 
where each man's hard task was to beat back five foes 
or die himself, of the five high officers who perished, 
four were Whigs. 

In speaking of this, I mean no odious comparison 
between the lion-hearted Whigs and the Democrats 
who fought there. On other occasions, and among 
the lower officers and privates on that occasion, I 
doubt not the proportion was different. I wish to 
do justice to all. I think of all those brave men as 
Americans, in whose proud fame, as an American, I 
too have a share. Many of them, Whigs and Demo- 



Abraham Lincoln 113 

crats, are my constituents and personal friends; 
and I thank them, — more than thank them, — one 
and all, for the high imperishable honor they have 
conferred on our common State. 

But the distinction between the cause of the 
President in beginning the war, and the cause of the 
coimtry after it was begun, is a distinction which 
you cannot perceive. To you the President and the 
country seem to be all one. You are interested to 
see no distinction between them; and I venture to 
suggest that probably 3^our interest blinds you a 
little. We see the distinction, as we think, clearly 
enough ; and our friends who have fought in the war 
have no difficulty in seeing it also. What those who 
have fallen would sa}^ were they alive and here, of 
course we can never know ; but with those who have 
returned there is no difficulty. Colonel Haskell and 
Major Gaines, members here, both fought in the war, 
and one of them underwent extraordinary perils and 
hardships; still they, like all other Whigs here, vote, 
on the record, that the war was unnecessarily and 
unconstitutionally commenced by the President. 
And even General Taylor himself, the noblest Roman 
of them all, has declared that as a citizen, and par- 
ticularly as a soldier, it is sufficient for him to know 
that his country is at war with a foreign nation, to 
do all in his power to bring it to a speedy and honor- 
able termination by the most vigorous and energetic 
operations, without inquiry about its justice, or any- 
thing else connected with it. 

Mr. Speaker, let our Democratic friends be com- 
forted with the assurance that we are content with 



114 The Writings of 

our position, content with our company, and content 
with our candidate ; and that although they, in their 
generous sympathy, think we ought to be miserable, 
we really are not, and that they may dismiss the 
great anxiety they have on our accotmt. 

Mr. Speaker, I see I have but three minutes left, 
and this forces me to throw out one whole branch of 
my subject. A single word on still another. The 
Democrats are keen enough to frequently remind us 
that we have some dissensions in our ranks. Our 
good friend from Baltimore immediately before me 
[Mr. McLane] expressed some doubt the other day as 
to which branch of our party General Taylor would 
ultimately fall into the hands of. That was a new 
idea to me. I knew we had dissenters, but I did not 
know they were trying to get our candidate away 
from us. I would like to say a word to our dissenters, 
but I have not the time. Some such we certainly 
have; have you none, gentlemen Democrats? Is it 
all union and harmony in your ranks ? no bickerings ? 
no divisions? If there be doubt as to which of our 
divisions will get our candidate, is there no doubt as 
to which of your candidates will get your party ? I 
have heard some things from New York ; and if they 
are true, one might well say of your party there, as 
a drunken fellow once said when he heard the reading 
of an indictment for hog-stealing. The clerk read 
on till he got to and through the words, "did steal, 
take, and carry away ten boars, ten sows, ten shoats, 
and ten pigs," at which he exclaimed, "Well, by 
golly, that is the most equally divided gang of hogs 
I ever did hear of!" If there is any other gang of 



Abraham Lincoln 115 

hogs more equally divided than the Democrats of 
New York are about this time, I have not heard of it. 



SPEECH DELIVERED AT WORCESTER, MASS., ON 
SEPT. 12, 1848. 

(From the Boston Advertiser.) 

Mr. Kellogg then introduced to the meeting the 
Hon. Abram Lincoln, Whig member of Congress 
from Illinois, a representative of free soil. 

Mr. Lincoln has a very tall and thin figure, with an 
intellectual face, showing a searching mind, and a 
cool judgment. He spoke in a clear and cool and 
very eloquent manner, for an hour and a half, carry- 
ing the audience with him in his able arguments and 
brilliant illustrations — only interrupted by warm 
and frequent applause. He began by expressing a 
real feeling of modesty in addressing an audience 
"this side of the mountains," a part of the country 
where, in the opinion of the people of his section, 
everybody was supposed to be instructed and wise. 
But he had devoted his attention to the question of 
the coming Presidential election, and was not un- 
willing to exchange with all whom he might the ideas 
to which he had arrived. He then began to show 
the fallacy of some of the arguments against Gen. 
Taylor, making his chief theme the fashionable state- 
ment of all those who oppose him ("the old Loco- 
focos as well as the new") that he has no principles, 
and that the Whig party have abandoned their 
principles by adopting him as their candidate. He 



ii6 The Writings of 



£5' 



maintained that Gen. Taylor occupied a high and 
unexceptionable Whig ground, and took for his first 
instance and proof of this the statement in the Alli- 
son letter — ^with regard to the bank, tariff, rivers 
and harbors, etc. — that the will of the people should 
produce its own results, without executive influence. 
The principle that the people should do what — under 
the Constitution — they please, is a Whig principle. 
All that Gen. Taylor is not only to consent to, but 
appeal to the people to judge and act for themselves. 
And this was no new doctrine for Whigs. It was the 
"platform" on which they had fought all their bat- 
tles, the resistance of executive influence, and the 
principle of enabling the people to frame the gov- 
ernment according to their will. Gen. Taylor con- 
sents to be the candidate, and to assist the people to 
do what they think to be their duty, and think to be 
best in their national affairs, but because he don't want 
to tell what we ought to do, he is accused of having no 
principles. The Whigs here maintained for years 
that neither the influence, the duress, or the prohibi- 
tion of the executive should control the legitimately 
expressed will of the people; and now that, on that 
very ground, Gen. Taylor says that he should use the 
power given him by the people to do, to the best of 
his judgment, the will of the people, he is accused of 
want of principle, and of inconsistency in position. 

Mr. Lincoln proceeded to examine the absurdity 
of an attempt to make a platform or creed for a 
national party, to all parts of which all must consent 
and agree, when it was clearly the intention and the 
true philosophy of our government, that in Congress 



Abraham Lincoln 117 

all opinions and principles should be represented, 
and that when the wisdom of all had been compared 
and united, the will of the majority should be carried 
out. On this ground he conceived (and the audience 
seemed to go with him) that Gen. Taylor held correct, 
sound republican principles. 

Mr. Lincoln then passed to the subject of slavery 
in the States, saying that the people of Illinois agreed 
entirely with the people of Massachusetts on this 
subject, except perhaps that they did not keep so 
constantly thinking about it. All agreed that slav- 
ery was an evil, but that we were not responsible 
for it and cannot affect it in States of this Union 
where we do not live. But the question of the ex- 
tension of slavery to new territories of this country 
is a part of our responsibility and care, and is under 
our control. In opposition to this Mr. L. believed 
that the self -named "Free Soil " party was far behind 
the Whigs. Both parties opposed the extension. 
As he understood it the new party had no principle 
except this opposition. If their platform held any 
other, it was in such a general way that it was like 
the pair of pantaloons the Yankee pedlar offered for 
sale, "large enough for any man, small enough for 
any boy." They therefore had taken a position cal- 
culated to break down their single important de- 
clared object. They were working for the election of 
either Gen. Cass or Gen. Taylor. The speaker then 
went on to show, clearly and eloquently, the danger 
of extension of slavery, likely to result from the elec- 
tion of Gen. Cass. To unite with those who annexed 
the new territory to prevent the extension of slavery 



1 1 8 The Writings of 

in that territory seemed to him to be in the highest 
degree absurd and ridiculous. Suppose these gen- 
tlemen succeed in electing Mr. Van Buren, they had 
no specific means to prevent the extension of slavery 
to New Mexico and California, and Gen. Taylor, he 
confidently believed, would not encourage it, and 
would not prohibit its restriction. But if Gen. Cass 
was elected, he felt certain that the plans of farther 
extension of territory would be encouraged, and 
those of the extension of slavery would meet no 
check. The "Free Soil" man in claiming that name 
indirectly attempts a deception, by implying that 
Whigs were not Free Soil men. Declaring that they 
would "do their duty and leave the consequences to 
God " merely gave an excuse for taking a course they 
were not able to maintain by a fair and full argument. 
To make this declaration did not show what their 
duty was. If it did we should have no use for judg- 
ment, we might as well be made without intellect; 
and when divine or human law does not clearly point 
out what is our duty, we have no means of finding 
out what it is but by using our most intelligent judg- 
ment of the consequences. If there were divine law 
or human law for voting for Martin Van Buren, or if a 
fair examination of the consequences and just reason- 
ing would show that voting for him would bring 
about the ends they pretended to wish — then he 
would give up the argument. But since there was 
no fixed law on the subject, and since the whole prob- 
able result of their action would be an assistance in 
electing Gen. Cass, he must say that they were behind 
the Whigs in their advocacy of the freedom of the soil. 



Abraham Lincoln 119 

Mr. Lincoln proceeded to rally the Buffalo conven- 
tion for forbearing to say anything — after all the 
previous declarations of those members who were 
formerly Whigs — on the subject of the Mexican War, 
because the Van Burens had been known to have 
supported it. He declared that of all the parties 
asking the confidence of the country, this new one 
had less of principle than any other. 

He wondered whether it was still the opinion of 
these Free Soil gentlemen, as declared in the 
"whereas " at Buffalo, that the Whig and Democratic 
parties were both entirely dissolved and absorbed 
into their own body. Had the Vermont election 
given them any light? They had calculated on 
making as great an impression in that State as in 
any part of the Union, and there their attempts had 
been wholly ineffectual. Their failure was a greater 
success than they would find in any other part of 
the Union. 

Mr. Lincoln went on to say that he honestly be- 
lieved that all those who wished to keep up the 
character of the Union; who did not believe in en- 
larging our field, but in keeping our fences where they 
are and cultivating our present possessions, making 
it a garden, improving the morals and education of 
the people, devoting the administrations to this pur- 
pose ; all real Whigs, friends of good honest govern- 
ment — the race was ours. He had opportunities of 
hearing from almost every part of the Union from 
reliable sources and had not heard of a county in 
which we had not received accessions from other 
parties. If the true Whigs come forward and join 



I20 The Writingfs of 



&' 



these new friends, they need not have a doubt. We 
had a candidate whose personal character and prin- 
ciples he had already described, whom he could not 
eulogize if he would. Gen. Taylor had been con- 
stantly, perseveringly, quietly standing up, doing Jus 
duty and asking no praise or reward for it. He was 
and must be just the man to whom the interests, 
principles, and prosperity of the coimtry might be 
safely intrusted. He had never failed in anything 
he had undertaken, although many of his duties had 
been considered almost impossible. 

Mr. Lincoln then went into a terse though rapid 
review of the origin of the Mexican War and the con- 
nection of the administration and General Taylor 
with it, from which he deduced a strong appeal to 
the Whigs present to do their duty in the support of 
General Taylor, and closed with the warmest aspira- 
tions for and confidence in a deserved success. 

At the close of his truly masterly and convincing 
speech, the audience gave three enthusiastic cheers 
for Illinois, and three more for the eloquent Whig 
member from the State. 



TO THOMAS LINCOLN. 

Washington, Dec. 24, 1848. 

My dear Father: — ^Your letter of the 7th was re- 
ceived night before last. I very cheerfully send you 
the twenty dollars, which sum you say is necessary 
to save your land from sale. It is singular that you 



Abraham Lincoln 121 

should have forgotten a judgment against you ; and 
it is more singular that the plaintiff should have let 
you forget it so long; particularly as I suppose you 
always had property enough to satisfy a judgment 
of that amount. Before you pay it, it would be well 
to be sure you have not paid, or at least, that you 
cannot prove you have paid it. 

Give my love to mother and all the connections. 

Affectionately your son, 
A. Lincoln. 



BILL TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA.^ 

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of 
Columbia be instructed to report a bill in substance 
as follows : 

Sec. I . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States, in Congress 
assembled, That no person not now within the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, nor now owned by any person or 
persons now resident within it, nor hereafter bom 
within it, shall ever be held in slavery within said 
District. 

Sec 2. That no person now within said District, 
or now owned by any person or persons now resident 
within the same, or hereafter bom within it, shall 
ever be held in slavery without the limits of said 
District : Provided, That officers of the Government 

' Moved as an amendment in House of Representatives, Jan. i6, 
1849. 



122 The Writings of 

of the United States, being citizens of the slaveholding 
States, coming into said District on public business, 
and remaining only so long as may be reasonably 
necessary for that object, may be attended into and 
out of said District, and while there, by the neces- 
sary servants of themselves and their families, with- 
out their right to hold such servants in service being 
thereby impaired. 

Sec. 3. That all children bom of slave mothers 
within said District, on or after the first day of 
January, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred 
and fifty, shall be free ; but shall be reasonably sup- 
ported and educated by the respective owners of 
their mothers, or by their heirs or representatives, 
and shall owe reasonable service as apprentices to 
such owners, heirs, or representatives, until they re- 
spectively arrive at the age of years, when they 

shall be entirely free; and the municipal authori- 
ties of Washington and Georgetown, within their re- 
spective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered 
and required to make all suitable and necessary pro- 
vision for enforcing obedience to this section, on the 
part of both masters and apprentices. 

Sec. 4. That all persons now within this District, 
lawfully held as slaves, or now owned by any person 
or persons now resident within said District, shall 
remain such at the will of their respective owners, 
their heirs, and legal representatives : Provided, That 
such owner, or his legal representative, may at any 
time receive from the Treasury of the United States 
the full value of his or her slave, of the class in this 
section mentioned, upon which such slave shall be 



Abraham Lincoln 123 

forthwith and forever free: And provided further, 
That the President of the United States, the Secretary 
of State, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
a board for determining the value of such slaves as 
their owners may desire to emancipate under this 
section, and whose duty it shall be to hold a session 
for the purpose on the first Monday of each calendar 
month, to receive all appUcations, and, on satisfac- 
tory evidence in each case that the person presented 
for valuation is a slave, and of the class in this section 
mentioned, and is owned by the applicant, shall 
value such slave at his or her full cash value, and 
give to the applicant an order on the Treasury for 
the amount, and also to such slave a certificate of 
freedom. 

Sec. 5. That the municipal authorities of Wash- 
ington and Georgetown, within their respective juris- 
dictional limits, are hereby empowered and required 
to provide active and efficient means to arrest and 
deliver up to their owners all fugitive slaves escaping 
into said District. 

Sec. 6. That the election officers within said Dis- 
trict of Columbia are hereby empowered and re- 
quired to open polls, at all the usual places of holding 
elections, on the first Monday of April next, and re- 
ceive the vote of every free white male citizen above 
the age of twenty-one years, having resided within 
said District for the period of one year or more next 
preceding the time of such voting for or against this 
act, to proceed in taking said votes, in all respects 
not herein specified, as at elections under the mu- 
nicipal laws, and with as little delay as possible to 



124 The Writings of 

transmit correct statements of the votes so cast to 
the President of the United States ; and it shall be the 
duty of the President to canvass said votes immedi- 
ately, and if a majority of them be found to be for 
this act, to forthwith issue his proclamation giv- 
ing notice of the fact ; and this act shall only be in 
full force and effect on and after the day of such 
proclamation. 

Sec. 7. That involuntary servitude for the pun- 
ishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been 
duly convicted, shall in no wise be prohibited by this 
act. 

Sec. 8. That for all the purposes of this act, the 
jurisdictional limits of Washington are extended to 
all parts of the District of Columbia not now included 
within the present limits of Georgetown. 



REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
FEBRUARY 13, 1 849. 

On the Bill Granting Lands to the States to Make 
Railroads and Canals, 

Mr. Lincoln said he had not risen for the purpose 
of making a speech, but only for the purpose of meet- 
ing some of the objections to the bill. If he under- 
stood those objections, the first was that if the bill 
were to become a law, it would be used to lock large 
portions of the public lands from sale, without at 
last effecting the ostensible object of the bill — ^the 



Abraham Lincoln 125 

construction of railroads in the new States; and 
secondly, that Congress would be forced to the aban- 
donment of large portions of the public lands to the 
States for which they might be reserved, without 
their paying for them. This he iinderstood to be 
the substance of the objections of the gentleman 
from Ohio to the passage of the bill. 

If he could get the attention of the House for a 
few minutes, he would ask gentlemen to tell us what 
motive could induce any State Legislature, or indi- 
vidual, or company of individuals, of the new States, 
to expend money in surveying roads which they 
might know they could not make. [A voice : They 
are not required to make the road.] 

Mr. Lincoln continued: That was not the case he 
was making. What motive would tempt any set of 
men to go into an extensive survey of a railroad 
which they did not intend to make? What good 
would it do? Did men act without motive? Did 
business men commonly go into an expenditure of 
money which could be of no account to them? He 
generally found that men who have money were dis- 
posed to hold on to it, unless they could see some- 
thing to be made by its investment. He could not 
see what motive of advantage to the new States 
could be subserved by merely keeping the public 
lands out of market, and preventing their settlement. 
As far as he could see, the new States were wholly 
without any motive to do such a thing. This, then, 
he took to be a good answer to the first objection. 

In relation to the fact assumed, that after a while, 
the new States having got hold of the public lands 



126 The Writings of 

to a certain extent, they would turn round and com- 
pel Congress to relinquish all claim to them, he had 
a word to say, by way of recurring to the history of 
the past. When was the time to come (he asked) 
when the States in which the public lands were situ- 
ated would compose a majority of the representation 
in Congress, or anything like it? A majority of 
Representatives would very soon reside west of the 
mountains, he admitted; but would they all come 
from States in which the public lands were situated ? 
They certainly would not; for, as these Western 
States grew strong in Congress, the public lands 
passed away from them, and they got on the other 
side of the question; and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Vinton] was an example attesting that fact. 

Mr. Vinton interrupted here to say that he had 
stood on this question just where he was now, for 
five and twenty years. 

Mr. Lincoln was not making an argument for the 
purpose of convicting the gentleman of any impro- 
priety at all. He was speaking of a fact in history, 
of which his State was an example. He was referring 
to a plain principle in the nature of things. The 
State of Ohio had now grown to be a giant. She 
had a large delegation on that floor; but was she now 
in favor of granting lands to the new States, as she 
used to be? The New England States, New York, 
and the Old Thirteen were all rather quiet upon the 
subject; and it was seen just now that a member 
from one of the new States was the first man to rise 
up in opposition. And so it would be with the history 
of this question for the future. There never would 



Abraham Lincoln 127 

come a time when the people residing in the States 
embracing the public lands would have the entire 
control of this subject; and so it was a matter of 
certainty that Congress would never do more in this 
respect than what would be dictated by a just liberal- 
ity. The apprehension, therefore, that the public 
lands were in danger of being wrested from the Gen- 
eral Government by the strength of the delegation in 
Congress from the new States, was utterly futile. 
There never could be such a thing. If we take these 
lands (said he) it will not be without your consent. 
We can never outnumber you. The result is that all 
fear of the new States turning against the right of 
Congress to the public domain must be effectually 
quelled, as those who are opposed to that interest 
must always hold a vast majority here, and they will 
never surrender the whole or any part of the public 
lands unless they themselves choose to do so. That 
was all he desired to say. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

Washington, March 9, 1849. 

Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 

Dear Sir: — Colonel E. D. Baker and myself are 
the only Whig members of Congress from Illinois — 
I of the Thirtieth, and he of the Thirty-first. We 
have reason to think the Whigs of that State hold us 
responsible, to some extent, for the appointments 
which may be made of our citizens. We do not know 



128 The Writings of 

you personally, and our efforts to you have so far 
been unavailing. I therefore hope I am not ob- 
trusive in saying in this way, for him and myself, 
that when a citizen of Illinois is to be appointed in 
your department, to an office either in or out of the 
State, we most respectfully ask to be heard. 

Your obedient servant, 
A. Lincoln. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 

Washington, March lo, 1849. 

Hon. Secretary of State. 

Sir : — ^There are several applicants for the office of 
United States Marshal for the District of Illinois. 
Among the most prominent of them are Benjamin 

Bond, Esq., of Carlyle, and Thomas, Esq., of 

Galena. Mr. Bond I know to be personally every 
way worthy of the office ; and he is very numerously 
and most respectably recommended. His papers I 
send to you; and I solicit for his claims a full and 
fair consideration. 

Having said this much, I add that in my individual 
judgment the appointment of Mr. Thomas would be 

the better. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



(Indorsed on Mr. Bond's papers.) 

In this and the accompanying envelope are the 
recommendations of about two hundred good citi- 
zens of all parts of Illinois, that Benjamin Bond be 



Abraham Lincoln 129 

appointed marshal for that district. They include 
the names of nearly all our Whigs who now are, or 
have ever been, members of the State Legislature, be- 
sides forty-six of the Democratic members of the 
present Legislature, and many other good citizens. 
I add that from personal knowledge I consider Mr. 
Bond every way worthy of the office, and qualified 
to fill it. Holding the individual opinion that the 
appointment of a different gentleman would be 
better, I ask especial attention and consideration for 
his claims, and for the opinions expressed in his favor 
by those over whom I can claim no superiority. 

A. Lincoln. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

Springfield, Illinois, April 7, 1849. 

Hon. Secretary of the Home Department. 

Dear Sir: — I recommend that Walter Davis be 
appointed receiver of the land-office at this place, 
whenever there shall be a vacancy. I cannot say 
that Mr. Hemdon, the present incumbent, has failed 
in the proper discharge of any of the duties of the 
office. He is a very warm partisan, and openly and 
actively opposed to the election of General Taylor. 
I also understand that since General Taylor's elec- 
tion he has received a reappointment from Mr. Polk, 
his old commission not having expired. Whether 
this is true the records of the department will show. 
I may add that the Whigs here almost universally 
desire his removal. 



130 The Writings of 

I give no opinion of my own, but state the facts, 
and express the hope that the department will act in 
this as in all other cases on some proper general rule. 
Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 

P. S. — The land district to which this office belongs 
is very nearly if not entirely within my district; 
so that Colonel Baker, the other Whig represent- 
ative, claims no voice in the appointment. 

A. L. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

Springfield, Illinois, April 7, 1849. 

Hon. Secretary of the Home Department. 

Dear Sir: — I recommend that Turner R. King, 
now of Pekin, Illinois, be appointed register of the land- 
office at this place whenever there shall be a vacancy. 

I do not know that Mr. Barret, the present incum- 
bent, has failed in the proper discharge of any of his 
duties in the office. He is a decided partisan, and 
openly and actively opposed the election of General 
Taylor. I understand, too, that since the election 
of General Taylor, Mr. Barret has received a reap- 
pointment from Mr. Polk, his old commission not 
having expired. Whether this be true, the records 
of the department will show. 

Whether he should be removed I give no opinion, 
but merely express the wish that the department 



Abraham Lincoln 131 

may act upon some proper general rule, and that Mr. 
Barret's case may not be made an exception to it. 
Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 

P. S. — ^The land district to which this office belongs 
is very nearly if not entirely within my district; so 
that Colonel Baker, the other Whig representative, 
claims no voice in the appointment. 

A. L. 



TO THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL. 

Springfield, Illinois, April 7, 1849. 

Hon. Postmaster-General. 

Dear Sir: — I recommend that Abner Y. Ellis be 
appointed postmaster at this place, whenever there 
shall be a vacancy. J. R. Diller, the present incum- 
bent, I cannot say has failed in the proper discharge 
of any of the duties of the office. He, however, has 
been an active partisan in opposition to us. 

Located at the seat of government of the State, 
he has been, for part if not the whole of the time he 
has held the office, a member of the Democratic 
State Central Committee, signing his name to their 
addresses and manifestoes; and has been, as I under- 
stand, reappointed by Mr. Polk since General Tay- 
lor's election. These are the facts of the case as I 
understand them, and I give no opinion of mine as to 
whether he should or should not be removed. My 
wish is that the department may adopt some proper 



132 The Writings of 

general rule for such cases, and that Mr. Diller may 
not be made an exception to it, one way or the other. 
Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 
P. S. — ^This office, with its delivery, is entirely 
within my district ; so that Colonel Baker, the other 
Whig representative, claims no voice in the appoint- 
ment. L. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

Springfield, Illinois, April 7, 1849. 

Hon. Secretary op the Home Department. 

Dear Sir: — I recommend that William Butler 
be appointed pension agent for the Illinois agency, 
when the place shall be vacant. Mr. Hurst, the 
present incumbent, I believe has performed the 
duties very well. He is a decided partisan, and I 
believe expects to be removed. Whether he shall, I 
submit to the department. This office is not con- 
fined to my district, but pertains to the whole State ; 
so that Colonel Baker has an equal right with myself 
to be heard concerning it. However, the office is 
located here ; and I think it is not probable that any 
one would desire to remove from a distance to take it. 
Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO THOMPSON. 

Springfield, April 25, 



Dear Thompson: 

A tirade is still kept up against me here for re- 
commending T. R. King. This morning it is openly 



Abraham Lincoln 133 

avowed that my supposed influence at Washington 
shall be broken down generally, and King's prospects 
defeated in particular. Now, what I have done in 
this matter I have done at the request of you and 
some other friends in Tazewell; and I therefore ask 
you to either admit it is wrong or come forward and 
sustain me. If the truth will permit, I propose that 
you sustain me in the following manner: copy the 
inclosed scrap in your own handwriting and get every- 
body (not three or four, but three or four hundred) 
to sign it, and then send it to me. Also, have six, 
eight or ten of our best known Whig friends there 
write to me individual letters, stating the truth in 
this matter as they understand it. Don't neglect or 
delay in the matter. I understand information of 
an indictment having been found against him about 
three years ago, for gaming or keeping a gaming- 
house, has been sent to the department. I shall try 
to take care of it at the department till your action 
can be had and forwarded on. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

Springfield, Illinois, May lo, 1849. 

Hon. Secretary of the Interior. 

Dear Sir: — I regret troubling you so often in rela- 
tion to the land-offices here, but I hope you will per- 
ceive the necessity of it, and excuse me. On the 7th 
of April I wrote you recommending Turner R. King 



134 The Writings of 

for register, and Walter Davis for receiver. Sub- 
sequently I wrote you that, for a private reason, I 
had concluded to transpose them. That private 
reason was the request of an old personal friend who 
himself desired to be receiver, but whom I felt it my 
duty to refuse a recommendation. He said if I 
would transpose King and Davis he would be satis- 
fied. I thought it a whim, but, anxious to oblige 
him, I consented. Immediately he commenced an 
assault upon King's character, intending, as I sup- 
pose, to defeat his appointment, and thereby secure 
another chance for himself. This double offence of 
bad faith to me and slander upon a good man is so 
totally outrageous that I now ask to have King and 
Davis placed as I originally recommended, — ^that is, 
King for register and Davis for receiver. 

An effort is being made now to have Mr. Barret, 
the present register, retained. I have already said 
he has done the duties of the office well, and I now 
add he is a gentleman in the true sense. Still, he 
submits to be the instrument of his party to injure 
us. His high character enables him to do it more 
effectually. Last year he presided at the conven- 
tion which nominated the Democratic candidate for 
Congress in this district, and afterward ran for the 
State Senate himself, not desiring the seat, but 
avowedly to aid and strengthen his party. He 
made speech after speech with a degree of fierceness 
and coarseness against General Taylor not quite con- 
sistent with his habitually gentlemanly deportment. 
At least one (and I think more) of those who are now 
trying to have him retained was himself an applicant 



Abraham Lincoln 135 

for this very office, and, failing to get my recom- 
mendation, now takes this turn. 

In writing you a third time in relation to these 
offices, I stated that I supposed charges had been 
forwarded to you against King, and that I would 
inquire into the truth of them, I now send you 
herewith what I suppose will be an ample defence 
against any such charges. I ask attention to all the 
papers, but particularly to the letters of Mr. David 
Mack, and the paper with the long list of names. 
There is no mistake about King's being a good man. 
After the imjust assault upon him, and considering 
the just claims of Tazewell County, as indicated in 
the letters I inclose you, it would in my opinion be 
injustice, and withal a blunder, not to appoint him, 
at least as soon as any one is appointed to either of 
the offices here. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO J. GILLESPIE. 

Springfield, III., May 19, 1849. 

Dear Gillespie: 

Butterfield will be commissioner of the Gen'l Land- 
Office, unless prevented by strong and speedy efforts. 
Ewing is for him, and he is only not appointed yet 
because Old Zach. hangs fire. 

I have reliable information of this. Now, if you 
agree with me that this appointment would dissatisfy 
rather than gratify the Whigs of this State, that it 
would slacken their energies in future contests, that 
his appointment in '41 is an old sore with them which 



136 The Writings of 

they will not patiently have reopened, — in a word 
that his appointment now would be a fatal blunder to 
the administration and our political men here in 
Illinois, write Crittenden to that effect. He can 
control the matter. Were you to write Ewing I fear 
the President would never hear of your letter. This 
may be mere suspicion. You might write directly to 
Old Zach. You will be the best judge of the pro- 
priety of that. Not a moment's time is to be lost. 

Let this be confidential except with Mr. Edwards 
and a few others whom you know I would trust just 
as I do you. Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO E. EMBREE. 

Confidential. 

Springfield, Illinois, May 25, 1849. 

Hon. E. Embree. 

Dear Sir : — I am about to ask a favor of you, — one 
which I hope will not cost you much. I understand 
the General Land-Office is about to be given to 
Illinois, and that Mr. Ewing desires Justin Butter- 
field, of Chicago, to be the man. I give you my 
word, the appointment of Mr. Butter field will be an 
egregious political blunder. It will give offence to 
the whole Whig party here, and be worse than a 
dead loss to the administration of so much of its 
patronage. Now, if you can conscientiously do so, 
I wish you to write General Taylor at once, saying 
that either I or the man I recommend should in 
your opinion be appointed to that ofhce, if any one 



Abraham Lincoln 137 

from Illinois shall be. I restrict my request to 
Illinois because you may have a man from your 
own State, and I do not ask to interfere with that. 

Your friend as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



IMPROVED METHOD OF LIFTING VESSELS OVER SHOALS. 

Application for Patent. 

What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure 
by letters patent, is the combination of expansible 
buoyant chambers placed at the sides of a vessel 
with the main shaft or shafts by means of the slid- 
ing spars, which pass down through the buoyant 
chambers and are made fast to their bottoms and 
the series of ropes and pulleys or their equivalents 
in such a manner that by turning the main shaft 
or shafts in one direction the buoyant chambers will 
be forced downward into the water, and at the same 
time expanded and filled with air for buoying up 
the vessel by the displacement of water, and by 
turning the shafts in an opposite direction the buoy- 
ant chambers will be contracted into a small space 
and secured against injury. 

A. Lincoln. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR. 

Springfield, III., June 3, 1849. 

Hon. Secretary of Interior. 

Dear Sir: — ^Vandalia, the receiver's office at 
which place is the subject of the within, is not in my 



138 The Writings of 

district ; and I have been much perplexed to express 
any preference between Dr. Stapp and Mr. Remann. 
If any one man is better qualified for such an office 
than all others, Dr. Stapp is that man ; still, I believe 
a large majority of the Whigs of the district prefer 
Mr. Remann, who also is a good man. Perhaps the 
papers on file will enable you to judge better than 
I can. The writers of the within are good men, 
residing within the land district. 

Your obt. servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO W. H. HERNDON. 

Springfield, June 5, 1849. 

Dear William : — ^Your two letters were received 
last night. I have a great many letters to write, 
and so cannot write very long ones. There must be 
some mistake about Walter Davis saying I promised 
him the post-office. I did not so promise him. I 
did tell him that if the distribution of the offices 
should fall into my hands, he should have something; 
and if I shall be convinced he has said any more than 
this, I shall be disappointed. I said this much to 
him because, as I understand, he is of good character, 
is one of the young men, is of the mechanics, and 
always faithful and never troublesome; a Whig, 
and is poor, with the support of a widow mother 
thrown almost exclusively on him by the death of 
his brother. If these are wrong reasons, then I 
have been wrong; but I have certainly not been 



Abraham Lincoln 139 

selfish in it, because in my greatest need of friends he 
was against me, and for Baker. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 
P. S. — Let the above be confidential. 



TO J. GILLESPIE. 

Springfield, July 13, 1849. 

Dear Gillespie: 

Mr. Edwards is unquestionably offended with me 
in connection with the matter of the General Land- 
Office. He wrote a letter against me which was 
filed at the department. 

The better part of one's life consists of his friend- 
ships; and, of them, mine with Mr. Edwards was one 
of the most cherished. I have not been false to it. 
At a word I could have had the office any time before 
the department was committed to Mr. Butterfield, — • 
at least Mr. Ewing and the President say as much. 
That word I forbore to speak, partly for other 
reasons, but chiefly for Mr. Edwards* sake, — ^losing 
the office (that he might gain it) I was always for ; 
but to lose his friendship, by the effort for him, 
would oppress me very much, were I not sustained 
by the utmost consciousness of rectitude. I first 
determined to be an applicant, unconditionally, on 
the 2nd of June; and I did so then upon being in- 
formed by a telegraphic despatch that the question 

was narrowed down to Mr. B and myself, and 

that the Cabinet had postponed the appointment 



I40 The Writings of 



three weeks, for my benefit. Not doubting that Mr. 
Edwards was wholly out of the question I, neverthe- 
less, would not then have become an applicant had I 
supposed he would thereby be brought to suspect 
me of treachery to him. Two or three days after- 
wards a conversation with Levi Davis convinced me 
Mr. Edwards was dissatisfied; but I was then too 
far in to get out. His own letter, written on the 
25th of April, after I had fully informed him of all 
that had passed, up to within a few days of that time, 
gave assurance I had that entire confidence from 
him which I felt my uniform and strong friendship 
for him entitled me to. Among other things it says, 
"Whatever course your judgment may dictate as 
proper to be pursued, shall never be excepted to by 
me." I also had had a letter from Washington, 
saying Chambers, of the Republic, had brought a 

rumor then, that Mr. E had declined in my 

favor, which rumor I judged came from Mr. E 

himself, as I had not then breathed of his letter to 
any living creature. In saying I had never, before 
the 2nd of June, determined to be an applicant, 
unconditionally, I mean to admit that, before then, I 
had said substantially I would take the office rather 
than it should be lost to the State, or given to one in 
the State whom the Whigs did not want ; but I aver 
that in every instance in which I spoke of myself, I 
intended to keep, and now believe I did keep, Mr. 

E • above myself. Mr. Edwards' first suspicion 

was that I had allowed Baker to overreach me, as 
his friend, in behalf of Don Morrison. I knew this 
was a mistake ; and the result has proved it. I un- 



Abraham Lincoln 141 

derstand his view now is, that if I had gone to open 
war with Baker I could have ridden him down, and 
had the thing all my own way. I believe no such 
thing. With Baker and some strong man from the 
Military tract & elsewhere for Morrison, and we 
and some strong man from the Wabash & elsewhere 
for Mr. E , it was not possible for either to suc- 
ceed. I believed this in March, and I know it now. 
The only thing which gave either any chance was the 
very thing Baker & I proposed, — an adjustment with 
themselves. 

You may wish to know how Butterfield finally 
beat me. I can not tell you particulars now, but 
will when I see you. In the meantime let it be 
understood I am not greatly dissatisfied, — I wish 
the offer had been so bestowed as to encourage our 
friends in future contests, and I regret exceedingly 
Mr. Edwards' feelings towards me. These two 
things away, I should have no regrets, — at least I 
think I would not. 

Write me soon. 

Your friend, as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



RESOLUTIONS OF SYMPATHY WITH THE CAUSE OF 
HUNGARIAN FREEDOM, SEPTEMBER [l 2 ?], 1849. 

At a meeting to express sympathy with the cause 
of Hungarian freedom. Dr. Todd, Thos. Lewis, Hon. 
A. Lincoln, and Wm. Carpenter were appointed a 



142 The Writings of 

committee to present appropriate resolutions, which 
reported through Hon. A. Lincoln the following: 

Resolved, That, in their present glorious struggle 
for liberty, the Hungarians command our highest 
admiration and have our warmest sympathy. 

Resolved, That they have our most ardent prayers 
for their speedy triumph and final success. 

Resolved, That the Government of the United 
States should acknowledge the independence of 
Hungary as a nation of freemen at the very earliest 
moment consistent with our amicable relations with 
the government against which they are contending. 

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this meeting, the 
immediate acknowledgment of the independence of 
Hungary by our government is due from American 
freemen to their struggling brethren, to the general 
cause of republican liberty, and not violative of the 
just rights of any nation or people. 



TO DR. WILLIAM FITHIAN. 

Springfield, Sept. 14, 1849. 

Dr. William Fithian, Danville, 111. 

Dear Doctor: — Your letter of the 9th was re- 
ceived a day or two ago. The notes and mortgages 
you enclosed me were duly received. I also got the 
original Blanchard mortgage from Antrim Campbell, 
with whom Blanchard had left it for you. I got a 
decree of foreclosure on the whole; but, owing to 
there being no redemption on the sale to be imder the 
Blanchard mortgage, the court allowed Mobley till 
the first of March to pay the money, before adver- 



Abraham Lincoln 143 

tising for sale. Stuart was empowered by Mobley to 
appear for him, and I had to take such decree as he 
would consent to, or none at all. I cast the matter 
about in my mind and concluded that as I could not 
get a decree we would put the accrued interest at 
interest, and thereby more than match the fact of 
throwing the Blanchard debt back from twelve to 
six per cent., it was better to do it. This is the 
present state of the case. 

I can well enough understand and appreciate your 
suggestions about the Land-Ofhce at Danville; but 
in my present condition, I can do nothing. 

Yours, as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



Springfield, Dec. 15, 1849. 

Esq. 



Dear Sir: — On my return from Kentucky I found 
your letter of the yth of November, and have delayed 
answering it till now for the reason I now briefly 
state. From the beginning of our acquaintance I 
had felt the greatest kindness for you and had sup- 
posed it was reciprocated on your part. Last sum- 
mer, under circumstances which I mentioned to you, 
I was painfully constrained to withhold a recom- 
mendation which you desired, and shortly after- 
wards I learned, in such a way as to believe it, that 
you were indulging in open abuse of me. Of course 
my feelings were wounded. On receiving your 
last letter the question occurred whether you were 
attempting to use me at the same time you would 



144 The Writings of 

injure me, or whether you might not have been 
misrepresented to me. If the former, I ought not 
to answer you; if the latter, I ought, and so I have 
remained in suspense. I now enclose you the let- 
ter, which you may use if you see fit. 

Yours, etc., 
A. Lincoln. 



RESOLUTIONS ON THE DEATH OF JUDGE NATHANIEL 

POPE. 

Circuit and District Court of the U. S. in and for 
the State and District of Illinois. Monday, June 3, 
1850. 

. . . On the opening of the Court this morning, 
the Hon. A. Lincoln, a member of the Bar of this 
Court, suggested the death of the Hon. Nathaniel 
Pope, late a judge of this Court, since the adjourn- 
ment of the last term ; whereupon, in token of respect 
for the memory of the deceased, it is ordered that the 
Court do now adjourn until to-morrow morning at 
ten o'clock. . . . 

The Hon. Stephen T. Logan, the Hon. Norman H. 
Purple, the Hon. David L. Gregg, the Hon. A. 
Lincoln, and George W. Meeker, Esq., were ap- 
pointed a Committee to prepare resolutions. . . . 
Whereupon, the Hon. Stephen T. Logan, in behalf of 
the Committee, presented the following preamble 
and resolutions : 

Whereas The Hon. Nathaniel Pope, District Judge 
of the United States Court for the District of Illinois, 



Abraham Lincoln i45 

having departed this hfe during the last vacation of 
said Court, and the members of the Bar of said Court, 
entertaining the highest veneration for his memory, 
a profoimd respect for his ability, great experience, 
and learning as a Judge, and cherishing for his many 
virtues, public and private, his earnest simplicity of 
character and unostentatious deportment, both in his 
public and private relations, the most lively and 
affectionate recollections, have 

Resolved, That, as a manifestation of their deep 
sense of the loss which has been sustained in his 
death, they will wear the usual badge of moiiming 
during the residue of the term. 

Resolved, That the Chairman communicate to the 
family of the deceased a copy of these proceedings, 
with an assurance of our sincere condolence on 
account of their heavy bereavement. 

Resolved, That the Hon. A. Williams, District 
Attorney of this Court, be requested in behalf of the 
meeting to present these proceedings to the Circuit 
Court, and respectfully to ask that they may be 
entered on the records. 

E. N. Powell, Sec'y. Samuel H. Treat, Ch'n. 



fragment: notes for law lecture, JULY I, 1850. 

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors 
to compromise whenever you can. Point out to 
them how the nominal winner is often a real 
loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a 



VOL. n.— 10. 



146 The Writings of 

peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity 
of being a good man. There will still be business 
enough. 

Never stir up litigation. A worse man can 
scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can 
be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually over- 
hauls the register of deeds in search of defects in 
titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his 
pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into 
the profession which should drive such men out 
of it. 

The matter of fees is important, far beyond the 
mere question of bread and butter involved. Prop- 
erly attended to, fuller justice is done to both 
lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be 
claimed. As a general rule never take your whole 
fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. 
When fully paid beforehand, you are more than a 
common mortal if you can feel the same interest in 
the case as if something was still in prospect for you, 
as well as for your client. And when you lack 
interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill 
and diligence in the performance. Settle the amount 
of fee and take a note in advance. Then you will 
feel that you are working for something, and you 
are sure to do your work faithfully and well. Never 
sell a fee note — at least not before the consideration 
service is performed. It leads to negligence and 
dishonesty — negligence by losing interest in the case, 
and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have 
allowed the consideration to fail. 



Abraham Lincoln i47 

TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

January 2, 185 1. 

Dear Johnston : — Your request for eighty dollars 
I do not think it best to comply with now. At the 
various times when I have helped you a little you 
have said to me, "We can get along very well now" ; 
but in a very short time I find you in the same 
difficulty again. Now, this can only happen by 
some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, 
I think I know. You are not lazy, and still you are 
an idler. I doubt whether, since I saw you, you 
have done a good whole day's work in any one day. 
You do not very much dislike to work, and still you 
do not work much merely because it does not seem 
to you that you could get much for it. This habit 
of uselessly wasting time is the whole difficulty ; it is 
vastly important to you, and still more so to your 
children, that you should break the habit. It is 
more important to them, because they have longer 
to live, and can keep (?ut of an idle habit before they 
are in it, easier than they can get out after they are 
in. 

You are now in need of some money; and what I 
propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and 
nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. 
Let father and your boys take charge of your things 
at home, prepare for a crop, and make the crop, and 
you go to work for the best money wages, or in dis- 
charge of any debt you owe, that you can get; and, 
to secure you a fair reward for your labor, I now 
promise you, that for every dollar you will, between 



148 The Writings of 

this and the first of May, get for your own labor, 
either in money or as your own indebtedness, I will 
then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire 
yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get 
ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your 
work. In this I do not mean you shall go off to St. 
Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines in Cali- 
fornia, but I mean for you to go at it for the best 
wages you can get close to home in Coles County. 
Now, if you will do this, you will be soon out of debt, 
and, what is better, you will have a habit that will 
keep you from getting in debt again. But, if I 
should now clear you out of debt, next year you 
would be just as deep in as ever. You say you 
would almost give your place in heaven for seventy 
or eighty dollars. Then you value your place in 
heaven very cheap, for I am sure you can, with the 
offer I make, get the seventy or eighty dollars for 
four or five months' work. You say if I will furnish 
you the money you will deed me the land, and, if you 
don't pay the money back, you will deliver posses- 
sion. Nonsense! If you can't now live with the 
land, how will you then live without it ? You have 
always been kind to me, and I do not mean to be 
unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but 
follow my advice, you will find it worth more than 
eighty times eighty dollars to you. 

Affectionately your brother, 
A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 149 

TO C. HOYT. 

Springfield, Jan. ir, 1851. 

C. HoYT, Esq. 

My dear Sir: — Our case is decided against us. 
The decision was announced this morning. Very 
sorry, but there is no help. The history of the case 
since it came here is this. On Friday morning last, 
Mr. Joy filed his papers, and entered his motion for a 
mandamus, and urged me to take up the motion as 
soon as possible. I already had the points and author- 
ity sent me by you and by Mr. Goodrich, but had not 
studied them. I began preparing as fast as possible. 

The evening of the same day I was again urged 
to take up the case. I refused on the ground that I 
was not ready, and on which plea I also got off over 
Saturday. But on Monday (the 14th) I had to go 
into it. We occupied the whole day, I using the 
large part. I made every point and used every 
authority sent me by yourself and by Mr. Goodrich ; 
and in addition all the points I could think of and all 
the authorities I could find myself. When I closed 
the argument on my part, a large package was 
handed me, which proved to be the plat you sent me. 

The court received it of me, but it was not different 
from the plat already on the record. I do not think 
I could ever have argued the case better than I did. 
I did nothing else, but prepare to argue and argue 
this case, from Friday morning till Monday evening. 
Very sorry for the result ; but I do not think it could 
have been prevented. Your friend, as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



150 The Writings of 

TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

Springfield, January 12, 185 1. 

Dear Brother: — On the day before yesterday I 
received a letter from Harriet, written at Greenup. 
She says she has just returned from your house, and 
that father is very low and will hardly recover. She 
also says you have written me two letters, and that, 
although you do not expect me to come now, you 
wonder that I do not write. 

I received both your letters, and although I have 
not answered them it is not because I have forgotten 
them, or been uninterested about them, but because 
it appeared to me that I could write nothing which 
would do any good. You already know I desire that 
neither father nor mother shall be in want of any 
comfort, either in health or sickness, while they live; 
and I feel sure you have not failed to use my name, 
if necessary, to procure a doctor, or anything else for 
father in his present sickness. My business is such 
that I could hardly leave home now, if it was not as 
it is, that my own wife is sick abed. (It is a case of 
baby-sickness, and I suppose is not dangerous.) I 
sincerely hope father may recover his health, but at 
all events, tell him to remember to call upon and 
confide in our great and good and merciful Maker, 
who will not turn away from him in any extremity. 
He notes the fall of a sparrow, and numbers the hairs 
of our heads, and He will not forget the dying man 
who puts his trust in Him. Say to him that if we 
could meet now it is doubtful whether it would not 
be more painful than pleasant, but that if it be his 



.'^^1 



Abraham Lincoln 151 

lot to go now, he will soon have a joyous meeting 
with many loved ones gone before, and where the rest 
of us, through the help of God, hope ere long to join 
them. 

Write to me again when you receive this. 

Affectionately, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO J, D. JOHNSTON. 

Springfield, Aug. 31, 1851. 

Dear Brother: 

Inclosed is the deed for the land. We are all well, 
and have nothing in the way of news. We have had 
no cholera here for about two weeks. 

Give my love to all, and especially to Mother. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO J. D. JOHNSTON. 

Shelbyville, Nov. 4, 1851. 

Dear Brother: 

When I came into Charleston day before yesterday 
I learned that you are anxious to sell the land where 
you live, and move to Missouri. I have been think- 
ing of this ever since, and cannot but think such 
a notion is utterly foolish. What can you do in 
Missouri better than here ? Is the land richer ? Can 
you there, any more than here, raise com and wheat 
and oats without work? Will anybody there, any 
more than here, do your work for you? If you 



152 The Writings of 

intend to go to work, there is no better place than 
right where you are; if you do not intend to go to 
work you cannot get along anywhere. Squirming 
and crawling about from place to place can do no 
good. You have raised no crop this year, and what 
you really want is to sell the land, get the money 
and spend it. Part with the land you have, and, 
my life upon it, you will never after own a spot big 
enough to bury you in. Half you will get for the 
land you spend in moving to Missouri, and the other 
half you will eat and drink and wear out, and no 
foot of land will be bought. Now I feel it is my duty 
to have no hand in such a piece of foolery. I feel 
that it is so even on your own account, and particu- 
larly on Mother's account. The eastern forty acres I 
intend to keep for Mother while she lives ; if you will 
not cultivate it, it will rent for enough to support her ; 
at least it will rent for something. Her dower in the 
other two forties she can let you have, and no thanks 
to me. 

Now do not misunderstand this letter. I do not 
write it in any imkindness. I write it in order, if 
possible, to get you to jace the truth, which truth is, 
yoii are destitute because you have idled away all 
your time. Your thousand pretences for not getting 
along better are all nonsense; they deceive nobody 
but yourself. Go to work is the only cure for your 
case. 

A word for Mother: Chapman tells me he wants 
you to go and live with him. If I were you I would 
try it awhile. If you get tired of it (as I think you 
will not) you can return to your own home. Chap- 



Abraham Lincoln 153 

man feels very kindly to you ; and I have no doubt 
he will make your situation very pleasant. 

Sincerely yours, 

A. Lincoln. 



Nov. 4, 1851. 

Dear Mother: 

Chapman tells me he wants you to go and live 
with him. If I were you I would try it awhile. If 
you get tired of it (as I think you will not) you can 
return to your own home. Chapman feels very 
kindly to you; and I have no doubt he will make 
your situation very pleasant. 

Sincerely your son, 
A. Lincoln. 



TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

Shelbyville, November 9, 1851. 

Dear Brother: — When I wrote you before, I had 
not received your letter. I still think as I did, but 
if the land can be sold so that I get three hundred 
dollars to put to interest for Mother, I will not object, 
if she does not. But before I will make a deed, the 
money must be had, or secured beyond all doubt, 
at ten per cent. 

As to Abram, I do not want him, on my own 
account ; but I understand he wants to live with me, 
so that he can go to school and get a fair start in the 
world, which I very much wish him to have. When 
I reach home, if I can make it convenient to take, I 
will take him, provided there is no mistake between 



154 The Writings of 

us as to the object and terms of my taking him. In 

haste, as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

Springfield, November 25, 1851. 

Dear Brother: — Your letter of the 226. is just 
received. Your proposal about selling the east 
forty acres of land is all that I want or could claim 
for myself; but I am not satisfied with it on Mother's 
account — ^I want her to have her living, and I feel 
that it is my duty, to some extent, to see that she is 
not wronged. She had a right of dower (that is, the 
use of one-third for life) in the other two forties; 
but, it seems, she has already let you take that, hook 
and line. She now has the use of the whole of the 
east forty, as long as she lives ; and if it be sold, of 
course she is entitled to the interest on all the money 
it brings, as long as she lives ; but you propose to sell 
it for three hundred dollars, take one hundred away 
with you, and leave her two hundred at 8 per cent., 
making her the enormous sum of 16 dollars a year. 
Now, if you are satisfied with treating her in that 
way, I am not. It is true that you are to have that 
forty for two hundred dollars, at Mother's death, 
but you are not to have it before. I am confident 
that land can be made to produce for Mother at 
least $30 a year, and I can not, to oblige any living 
person, consent that she shall be put on an allowance 
of sixteen dollars a year. Yours, etc., 

A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 155 

EULOGY ON HENRY CLAY, DELIVERED IN THE STATE 
HOUSE AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, JULY l6, 1852. 

On the fourth day of July, 1776, the people of a few 
feeble and oppressed colonies of Great Britain, in- 
habiting a portion of the Atlantic coast of North 
America, publicly declared their national independ- 
ence, and made their appeal to the justice of their 
cause and to the God of battles for the maintenance 
of that declaration. That people were few in number 
and without resources, save only their wise heads 
and stout hearts. Within the first year of that 
declared independence, and while its maintenance 
was yet problematical, — while the bloody struggle 
between those resolute rebels and their haughty 
would-be masters was still waging, — of undistin- 
guished parents and in an obscure district of one of 
those colonies Henry Clay was bom. The infant 
nation and the infant child began the race of life 
together. For three quarters of a century they have 
travelled hand in hand. They have been companions 
ever. The nation has passed its perils, and it is free, 
prosperous, and powerful. The child has reached 
his manhood, his middle age, his old age, and is dead. 
In all that has concerned the nation the man ever 
sympathized; and now the nation mourns the 
man. 

The day after his death one of the public journals, 
opposed to him politically, held the following 
pathetic and beautiful language, which I adopt 
partly because such high and exclusive eulogy, 
originating with a political friend, might offend good 



156 The Writings of 

taste, but chiefly because I could not in any language 
of my own so well express my thoughts : 

"Alas, who can realize that Henry Clay is dead! 
Who can realize that never again that majestic form 
shall rise in the council-chambers of his country to 
beat back the storms of anarchy which may threaten, 
or pour the oil of peace upon the troubled billows 
as they rage and menace around! Who can real- 
ize that the workings of that mighty mind have 
ceased, that the throbbings of that gallant heart are 
stilled, that the mighty sweep of that graceful arm 
will be felt no more, and the magic of that eloquent 
tongue, which spake as spake no other tongue be- 
sides, is hushed — ^hushed for ever! Who can realize 
that freedom's champion, the champion of a civilized 
world and of all tongues and kindreds of people, has 
indeed fallen! Alas, in those dark hours of peril 
and dread which our land has experienced, and which 
she may be called to experience again, to whom now 
may her people look up for that counsel and advice 
which only wisdom and experience and patriotism 
can give, and which only the imdoubting confidence 
of a nation will receive? Perchance in the whole 
circle of the great and gifted of our land there remains 
but one on whose shoulders the mighty mantle of the 
departed statesman may fall ; one who while we now 
write is doubtless pouring his tears over the bier of 
his brother and friend — ^brother, friend, ever, yet in 
political sentiment as far apart as party could make 
them. Ah, it is at times like these that the petty 
distinctions of mere party disappear. We see only 
the great, the grand, the noble features of the de- 



Abraham Lincoln 157 

parted statesman; and we do not even beg permis- 
sion to bow at his feet and mingle our tears with those 
who have ever been his political adherents — ^we do 
[not] beg this permission, we claim it as a right, 
though we feel it as a privilege. Henry Clay 
belonged to his country — to the world; mere party 
cannot claim men like him. His career has been 
national, his fame has filled the earth, his memory 
will endure to the last syllable of recorded time. 

" Henry Clay is dead! He breathed his last on 
yesterday, at twenty minutes after eleven, in his 
chamber at Washington. To those who followed 
his lead in public affairs, it more appropriately 
belongs to pronounce his eulog}^ and pay specific 
honors to the memory of the illustrious dead. But 
all Americans may show the grief which his death 
inspires, for his character and fame are national 
property. As on a question of liberty he knew no 
North, no South, no East, no West, but only the 
Union which held them all in its sacred circle, so 
now his countrymen will know no grief that is not 
as wide-spread as the bounds of the confederacy. 
The career of Henry Clay was a public career. From 
his youth he has been devoted to the public service, 
at a period, too, in the world's history justly regarded 
as a remarkable era in human affairs. He witnessed 
in the beginning the throes of the French Revolution. 
He saw the rise and fall of Napoleon. He was called 
upon to legislate for America and direct her policy 
when all Europe was the battlefield of contending 
dynasties, and when the struggle for supremacy 
imperilled the rights of all neutral nations. His voice 



158 The Writings of 

spoke war and peace in the contest with Great 
Britain. 

" When Greece rose against the Turks and struck 
for Hberty, his name was mingled with the battle-cry 
of freedom. When South America threw off the 
thraldom of Spain, his speeches were read at the head 
of her armies by Bolivar. His name has been, and 
will continue to be, hallowed in two hemispheres, 
for it is 

'One of the few, the immortal names 
That were not born to die ! ' 

" To the ardent patriot and profound statesman 
he added a quality possessed by few of the gifted on 
earth. His eloquence has not been surpassed. In 
the effective power to move the heart of man, Clay 
was without an equal, and the heaven-bom endow- 
ment, in the spirit of its origin, has been most con- 
spicuously exhibited against intestine feud. On at 
least three important occasions he has quelled our 
civil commotions by a power and influence which 
belonged to no other statesman of his age and times. 
And in our last internal discord, when this Union 
trembled to its centre, in old age he left the shades 
of private life, and gave the death-blow to fraternal 
strife, with the vigor of his earlier years, in a series 
of senatorial efforts which in themselves would bring 
immortality by challenging comparison with the 
efforts of any statesman in any age. He exorcised 
the demon which possessed the body politic, and 
gave peace to a distracted land. Alas! the achieve- 



Abraham Lincoln 159 

ment cost him his life. He sank day by day to the 
tomb — ^his pale but noble brow bound with a triple 
wreath, put there by a grateful country. May his 
ashes rest in peace, while his spirit goes to take its 
station among the great and good men who preceded 
him." 

While it is customary and proper upon occasions 
like the present to give a brief sketch of the life of the 
deceased, in the case of Mr. Clay it is less necessary 
than most others ; for his biography has been written 
and rewritten and read and reread for the last 
twenty-five years; so that, with the exception of a 
few of the latest incidents of his life, all is as well 
known as it can be. The short sketch which I give 
is, therefore, merely to maintain the connection of 
this discourse. 

Henry Clay was bom on the twelfth day of April, 
1777, in Hanover Coimty, Virginia. Of his father, 
who died in the fourth or fifth year of Henry's age, 
little seems to be known, except that he was a re- 
spectable man and a preacher of the Baptist persua- 
sion. Mr. Clay's education to the end of life was 
comparatively limited. I say "to the end of life," 
because I have understood that from time to time he 
added something to his education during the greater 
part of his whole life. Mr. Clay's lack of a more per- 
fect early education, however it may be regretted 
generally, teaches at least one profitable lesson: it 
teaches that in this country one can scarcely be so 
poor but that, if he will, he can acquire sufficient 
education to get through the world respectably. In 



i6o The Writings of 

his twenty-third year Mr. Clay was licensed to 
practise law, and emigrated to Lexington, Kentucky. 
Here he commenced and continued the practice till 
the year 1803, when he was first elected to the 
Kentucky Legislature. By successive elections he 
was continued in the Legislature till the latter part of 
1806, when he was elected to fill a vacancy of a single 
session in the United States Senate. In 1807 he was 
again elected to the Kentucky House of Representa- 
tives, and by that body chosen Speaker. In 1808 
he was re-elected to the same body. In 1809 he was 
again chosen to fill a vacancy of two years in the 
United States Senate. In 181 1 he was elected to 
the United States House of Representatives, and on 
the first day of taking his seat in that body he was 
chosen its Speaker. In 181 3 he was again elected 
Speaker. Early in 18 14, being the period of our last 
British war, Mr. Clay was sent as commissioner, with 
others, to negotiate a treaty of peace, which treaty 
was concluded in the latter part of the same year. 
On his return from Europe he was again elected to 
the lower branch of Congress, and on taking his seat 
in December, 181 5, was called to his old post — ^the 
Speaker's chair, a position in which he was retained 
by successive elections, with one brief intermission, 
till the inauguration of John Quincy Adams, in 
March, 1825. He was then appointed Secretary of 
State, and occupied that important station till the 
inauguration of General Jackson, in March, 1829. 
After this he returned to Kentucky, resumed the 
practice of law, and continued it till the autumn of 
1 83 1 , when he was by the Legislature of Kentucky 



Abraham Lincoln i6i 

again placed in the United States Senate. By a re- 
election he was continued in the Senate till he re- 
signed his seat and retired, in March, 1848. In 
December, 1849, he again took his seat in the Senate, 
which he again resigned only a few months before his 
death. 

By the foregoing it is perceived that the period 
from the beginning of Mr. Clay's official life in 1803 
to the end of 1852 is but one year short of half a 
century, and that the sum of all the intervals in it 
will not amoimt to ten years. But mere duration of 
time in office constitutes the smallest part of Mr. 
Clay's history. Throughout that long period he has 
constantly been the most loved and most implicitly 
followed by friends, and the most dreaded by op- 
ponents, of all living American politicians. In all 
the great questions which have agitated the country, 
and particularly in those fearful crises, the Missouri 
question, the nullification question, and the late 
slavery question, as connected with the newly 
acquired territory, involving and endangering the 
stability of the Union, his has been the leading and 
most conspicuous part. In 1824 he was first a 
candidate for the Presidency, and was defeated; 
and, although he was successively defeated for the 
same office in 1832 and in 1844, there has never been 
a moment since 1824 till after 1848 when a very large 
portion of the American people did not cling to him 
with an enthusiastic hope and purpose of still 
elevating him to the Presidency. With other men, 
to be defeated was to be forgotten; but with him 
defeat was but a trifling incident, neither changing 

VOL. II.— II. 



1 62 The Writings of 

him nor the world's estimate of him. Even those of 
both political parties who have been preferred to him 
for the highest office have run far briefer courses 
than he, and left him still shining high in the heavens 
of the political world. Jackson, Van Buren, Harri- 
son, Polk, and Ta3dor all rose after, and set long 
before him. The spell — the long-enduring spell — 
with which the souls of men were bound to him is a 
miracle. Who can compass it? It is probably true 
he owed his pre-eminence to no one quality, but 
to a fortunate combination of several. He was sur- 
passingly eloquent; but many eloquent men fail 
utterly, and they are not, as a class, generally suc- 
cessful. His judgment was excellent; but many 
men of good judgment live and die unnoticed. His 
will was indomitable ; but this quality often secures 
to its owner nothing better than a character for 
useless obstinacy. These, then, were Mr. Clay's 
leading qualities. No one of them is very uncom- 
mon; but all together are rarely combined in a 
single individual, and this is probably the reason 
why such men as Henry Clay are so rare in the 
world. 

Mr. Clay's eloquence did not consist, as many fine 
specimens of eloquence do, of types and figures, of 
antithesis and elegant arrangement of words and 
sentences, but rather of that deeply earnest and 
impassioned tone and manner which can proceed 
only from great sincerity, and a thorough conviction 
in the speaker of the justice and importance of his 
cause. This it is that truly touches the chords of 
sympathy; and those who heard Mr. Clay never 



Abraham Lincoln 163 

failed to be moved by it, or ever afterward forgot the 
impression. All his efforts were made for practical 
effect. He never spoke merely to be heard. He 
never delivered a Fourth of July oration, or a eulogy 
on an occasion like this. As a politician or states- 
man, no one was so habitually careful to avoid all 
sectional ground. Whatever he did he did for the 
whole country. In the construction of his measures, 
he ever carefully surveyed every part of the field, and 
duly weighed every conflicting interest. Feeling as 
he did, and as the truth surely is, that the world's 
best hope depended on the continued union of these 
States, he was ever jealous of and watchful for what- 
ever might have the slightest tendency to separate 
them. 

Mr. Clay's predominant sentiment, from first to 
last, was a deep devotion to the cause of human 
liberty — a strong sympathy with the oppressed 
everywhere, and an ardent wish for their elevation. 
With him this was a primary and all-controlling 
passion. Subsidiary to this was the conduct of his 
whole life. He loved his country partly because it 
was his own country, and mostly because it was a 
free country; and he burned with a zeal for its ad- 
vancement, prosperity, and glory, because he saw 
in such the advancement, prosperity, and glory of 
human liberty, human right, and human nature. 
He desired the prosperity of his countrymen, partly 
because they were his countrymen, but chiefly to 
show to the world that free men could be prosperous. 

That his views and measures were always the 
wisest needs not to be affirmed; nor should it be on 



164 The Writings of 

this occasion, where so many thinking differently 
join in doing honor to his memory. A free people in 
times of peace and quiet — ^when pressed by no com- 
mon danger — naturally divide into parties. At such 
times the man who is of neither party is not, cannot 
be, of any consequence. Mr. Clay therefore was of a 
party. Taking a prominent part, as he did, in all 
the great political questions of his country for the 
last half century, the wisdom of his course on many 
is doubted and denied by a large portion of his 
countrymen; and of such it is not now proper to 
speak particularly. But there are many others, 
about his course upon which there is little or no dis- 
agreement amongst intelligent and patriotic Amer- 
icans. Of these last are the War of 181 2, the 
Missouri question, nullification, and the now recent 
compromise measures. In 18 12 Mr. Clay, though 
not unknown, was still a yoimg man. Whether we 
should go to war with Great Britain being the ques- 
tion of the day, a minority opposed the declaration 
of war by Congress, while the majority, though ap- 
parently inclined to war, had for years wavered, and 
hesitated to act decisively. Meanwhile British ag- 
gressions multiplied, and grew more daring and ag- 
gravated. By Mr. Clay more than any other man 
the struggle was brought to a decision in Congress. 
The question, being now fully before Congress, came 
up in a variety of ways in rapid succession, on most 
of which occasions Mr. Clay spoke. Adding to all 
the logic of which the subject was susceptible that 
noble inspiration which came to him as it came to no 
other, he aroused and nerved and inspired his friends, 



Abraham Lincoln 165 

and confounded and bore down all opposition. 
Several of his speeches on these occasions were 
reported and are still extant, but the best of them 
all never was. During its delivery the reporters 
forgot their vocation, dropped their pens, and sat 
enchanted from near the beginning to quite the close. 
The speech now lives only in the memory^ of a few old 
men, and the enthusiasm with which they cherish 
their recollection of it is absolutely astonishing. The 
precise language of this speech we shall never know ; 
but we do know — ^we cannot help knowing — that 
with deep pathos it pleaded the cause of the injured 
sailor, that it invoked the genius of the Revolution, 
that it apostrophized the names of Otis, of Henry, 
and of Washington, that it appealed to the interests, 
the pride, the honor, and the glory of the nation, that 
it shamed and taunted the timidity of friends, that 
it scorned and scouted and withered the temerit}^ of 
domestic foes, that it bearded and defied the Brit- 
ish Hon, and, rising and swelling and maddening in 
its course, it sounded the onset, till the charge, 
the shock, the steady struggle, and the glorious vic- 
tory all passed in vivid review before the entranced 
hearers. 

Important and exciting as was the war question 
of 181 2, it never so alarmed the sagacious statesmen 
of the country for the safety of the Repubhc as after- 
ward did the Missouri question. This sprang from 
that unfortunate source of discord — negro slavery. 
When our Federal Constitution was adopted, we 
owned no territory beyond the limits or ownership 
of the States, except the territory northwest of the 



1 66 The Writings of 

River Ohio and east of the Mississippi. What has 
since been formed into the States of Maine, Kentucky 
and Tennessee, was, I beheve, within the limits of or 
owned by Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Caro- 
lina. As to the Northwestern Territory, provision 
had been made even before the adoption of the Con- 
stitution that slavery should never go there. On 
the admission of States into the Union, carved from 
the territory we owned before the Constitution, no 
question, or at most no considerable question, arose 
about slavery — ^those which were within the limits of 
or owned by the old States following respectively 
the condition of the parent State, and those within 
the Northwest Territory following the previously 
made provision. But in 1803 we purchased Louis- 
iana of the French, and it included with much more 
what has since been formed into the State of Missouri. 
With regard to it, nothing had been done to forestall 
the question of slavery. When, therefore, in 1819, 
Missouri, having formed a State constitution without 
excluding slavery, and with slavery already actually 
existing within its limits, knocked at the door of the 
Union for admission, almost the entire representa- 
tion of the non-slaveholding States objected. A 
fearful and angry struggle instantly followed. This 
alarmed thinking men more than any previous ques- 
tion, because, unlike all the former, it divided the 
country by geographical lines. Other questions had 
their opposing partisans in all localities of the 
country and in almost every family, so that no 
division of the Union could follow such without a 
separation of friends to quite as great an extent as 



Abraham Lincoln 167 

that of opponents. Not so with the Missouri ques- 
tion. On this a geographical line could be traced, 
which in the main w^ould separate opponents only. 
This was the danger. Mr. Jefferson, then in retire- 
ment, wrote: 

" I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers or 
to pay any attention to public affairs, confident they 
were in good hands and content to be a passenger in 
our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. 
But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the 
night, awakened and filled me with terror. I con- 
sidered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is 
hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a 
reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical 
line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and 
political, once conceived and held up to the angry 
passions of men, will never be obliterated, and every 
irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say 
with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth 
who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us 
from this heavy reproach in any practicable way. 
The cession of that kind of property — for it is so 
misnamed — is a bagatelle which would not cost me 
a second thought if in that way a general emancipa- 
tion and expatriation could be effected, and gradu- 
ally and with due sacrifices I think it might be. But 
as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can 
neither hold him nor safel}^ let him go. Justice is in 
one scale, and self-preservation in the other." 

Mr. Clay was in Congress, and, perceiving the 
danger, at once engaged his whole energies to avert 
it. It began, as I have said, in 1819 ; and it did not 



i68 The Writings of 

terminate till 1821. Missouri would not yield the 
point; and Congress — that is, a majority in Con- 
gress — ^by repeated votes showed a determination 
not to admit the State unless it should yield. After 
several failures, and great labor on the part of Mr. 
Clay to so present the question that a majority could 
consent to the admission, it was by a vote rejected, 
and, as all seemed to think, finally. A sullen gloom 
hung over the nation. All felt that the rejection of 
Missouri was equivalent to a dissolution of the Union, 
because those States which already had what Mis- 
souri was rejected for refusing to relinquish would 
go with Missouri. All deprecated and deplored this, 
but none saw how to avert it. For the judgment of 
members to be convinced of the necessity of yielding 
was not the whole difficulty ; each had a constituency 
to meet and to answer to. Mr. Clay, though worn 
down and exhausted, was appealed to by members 
to renew his efforts at compromise. He did so, and 
by some judicious modifications of his plan, coupled 
with laborious efforts with individual members and 
his own overmastering eloquence upon that floor, he 
finally secured the admission of the State. Brightly 
and captivating as it had previously shown, it was 
now perceived that his great eloquence was a mere 
embellishment, or at most but a helping hand to his 
inventive genius and his devotion to his coimtry in 
the day of her extreme peril. 

After the settlement of the Missouri question, 
although a portion of the American people have 
differed with Mr. Clay, and a majority even appear 
generally to have been opposed to him on questions 



Abraham Lincoln 169 

of ordinary administration, he seems constantly to 
have been regarded by all as the man for the crisis. 
Accordingly, in the days of nulhfication, and more 
recently in the reappearance of the slavery question 
connected with our territory newly acquired of 
Mexico, the task of devising a mode of adjustment 
seems to have been cast upon Mr. Clay by common 
consent — and his performance of the task in each 
case was little else than a literal fulfilment of the 
public expectation. 

Mr. Clay's efforts in behalf of the South Ameri- 
cans, and afterward in behalf of the Greeks, in the 
times of their respective struggles for civil liberty, 
are among the finest on record, upon the noblest of 
all themes, and bear ample corroboration of what 
I have said was his ruling passion — a love of liberty 
and right, unselfishly, and for their own sakes. 

Having been led to allude to domestic slavery so 
frequently already, I am imwilling to close without 
referring more particularly to Mr. Clay's views and 
conduct in regard to it. He ever was on principle 
and in feeling opposed to slavery. The very earliest, 
and one of the latest, public efforts of his life, sepa- 
rated by a period of more than fifty years, were both 
made in favor of gradual emancipation. He did not 
perceive that on a question of human right the 
negroes were to be excepted from the human race. 
And yet Mr. Clay was the owner of slaves. Cast 
into life when slavery was already widely spread and 
deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no 
wise man has perceived, how it could be at once 
eradicated without producing a greater evil even to 



I70 The Writings of 

the cause of human Hberty itself. His feehng and 
his judgment, therefore, ever led him to oppose both 
extremes of opinion on the subject. Those who would 
shiver into fragments the Union of these States, 
tear to tatters its now venerated Constitution, and 
even bum the last copy of the Bible, rather than 
slavery should continue a single hour, together with 
all their more halting sympathizers, have received, 
and are receiving, their just execration; and the 
name and opinions and influence of Mr. Clay are 
fully and, as I trust, effectually and enduringly 
arrayed against them. But I would also, if I could, 
array his name, opinions, and influence against the 
opposite extreme — against a few but an increasing 
number of men who, for the sake of perpetuating 
slavery, are beginning to assail and to ridicule the 
white man's charter of freedom, the declaration that 
"all men are created free and equal." So far as I 
have learned, the first American of any note to do or 
attempt this was the late John C. Calhoun ; and if I 
mistake not, it soon after found its way into some of 
the messages of the Governor of South Carolina. 
We, however, look for and are not much shocked by 
political eccentricities and heresies in South Carolina. 
But only last year I saw with astonishment what 
purported to be a letter of a very distinguished and 
influential clergyman of Virginia, copied, with ap- 
parent approbation, into a St. Louis newspaper, con- 
taining the following to me very imsatisfactory 
language : 

"I am fully aware that there is a text in some Bibles 
that is not in mine. Professional abolitionists have 



Abraham Lincoln 171 

made more use of it than of any passage in the Bible. 
It came, however, as I trace it, from Saint Voltaire, 
and was baptized by Thomas Jefferson, and since 
almost universally regarded as canonical authority — 
'All men are bom free and equal.' 

"This is a genuine coin in the political currency of 
our generation. I am sorry to say that I have never 
seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit 
I never saw the Siamese Twins, and therefore will not 
dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of 
this sage aphorism." 

This sounds strangely in republican America. 
The like was not heard in the fresher days of the 
republic. Let us contrast with it the language of 
that truly national man whose life and death we 
now commemorate and lament. I quote from a 
speech of Mr. Clay delivered before the American 
Colonization Society in 1827: 

" We are reproached with doing mischief by the 
agitation of this question. The society goes into no 
household to disturb its domestic tranquillity. It 
addresses itself to no slaves to weaken their obli- 
gations of obedience. It seeks to affect no man's 
property. It neither has the power nor the will to 
affect the property of any one contrary to his consent. 
The execution of its scheme would augment instead 
of diminishing the value of property left behind. 
The society, composed of free men, concerns itself 
only with the free. Collateral consequences we are 
not responsible for. It is not this society which has 
produced the great moral revolution which the age 
exhibits. What would they who thus reproach us 



172 The Writings of 

have done? If they would repress all tendencies 
toward liberty and ultimate emancipation, they 
must do more than put down the benevolent efforts 
of this society. They must go back to the era of 
our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon 
which thunders its annual joyous return. They must 
renew the slave trade, with all its train of atroci- 
ties. They must suppress the workings of British 
philanthropy, seeking to meliorate the condition 
of the imfortimate West Indian slave. They must 
arrest the career of South American deliverance from 
thraldom. They must blow out the moral lights 
around us and extinguish that greatest torch of all 
which America presents to a benighted world — 
pointing the way to their rights, their liberties, and 
their happiness. And when they have achieved all 
those purposes their work will be yet incomplete. 
They must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate 
the light of reason and the love of liberty. Then, 
and not till then, when universal darkness and 
despair prevail, can you perpetuate slavery and 
repress all sympathy and all humane and benevolent 
efforts among free men in behalf of the unhappy 
portion of our race doomed to bondage." 

The American Colonization Society was organized 
in 1816. Mr. Clay, though not its projector, was one 
of its earliest members; and he died, as for many 
preceding years he had been, its president. It was 
one of the most cherished objects of his direct care 
and consideration, and the association of his name 
with it has probably been its very greatest collateral 
support. He considered it no demerit in the society 



Abraham Lincoln 173 

that it tended to reheve the slaveholders from the 
troublesome presence of the free negroes; but this 
was far from being its whole merit in his estimation. 
In the same speech from which we have quoted 
he says: 

" There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to 
Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn 
from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence. 
Transplanted in a foreign land, they will carry back 
to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civiliza- 
tion, law, and liberty. May it not be one of the 
great designs of the Ruler of the universe, whose 
ways are often inscrutable by short-sighted mortals, 
thus to transform an original crime into a signal 
blessing to that most unfortunate portion of the 
globe?" 

This suggestion of the possible ultimate redemp- 
tion of the African race and African continent was 
made twenty-five years ago. Every succeeding 
year has added strength to the hope of its realization. 
May it indeed be realized. Pharaoh's country was 
cursed with plagues, and his hosts were lost in the 
Red Sea, for striving to retain a captive people who 
had already served them more than four hundred 
years. May like disasters never befall us! If, as 
the friends of colonization hope, the present and 
coming generations of our countrymen shall by any 
means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous 
presence of slavery, and at the same time in restor- 
ing a captive people to their long-lost fatherland 
with bright prospects for the future, and this too so 
gradually that neither races nor individuals shall 



174 The Writings of 

have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a 
glorious consummation. And if to such a consum- 
mation the efforts of Mr. Clay shall have contributed, 
it will be what he most ardently wished, and none 
of his labors will have been more valuable to his 
country and his kind. 

But Henry Clay is dead. His long and eventful 
life is closed. Our country is prosperous and power- 
ful ; but could it have been quite all it has been, and 
is, and is to be, without Henry Clay? Such a man 
the times have demanded, and such in the provi- 
dence of God was given us. But he is gone. Let us 
strive to deserve, as far as mortals may, the con- 
tinued care of Divine Providence, trusting that in 
future national emergencies He will not fail to pro- 
vide us the instruments of safety and security. 

Note. — We are indebted for a copy of this speech 
to the courtesy of Major Wm. H. Bailhache, formerly 
one of the proprietors of the Illinois State Journal. 



OPINION ON THE ILLINOIS ELECTION LAW. 

Challenged Voters. 

Springfield, November i, 1852. 

A leading article in the Daily Register of this morn- 
ing has induced some of our friends to request our 
opinion on the election laws as applicable to chal- 
lenged voters. We have examined the present con- 
stitution of the State, the election law of 1849, ^^^ 



Abraham Lincoln 175 

the iinrepealed parts of the election law in the 
revised code of 1845 5 ^^^ we are of the opinion that 
any person taking the oath prescribed in the act of 
1849 is entitled to vote unless counter-proof be made 
satisfactory to a majority of the judges that such 
oath is untrue ; and that for the purpose of obtaining 
such counter-proof, the proposed voter may be asked 
questions in the way of cross-examination, and other 
independent testimony may be received. We base 
our opinion as to receiving counter-proof upon the 
unrepealed section nineteen of the election law in the 
revised code. 

A. Lincoln, 

B. S. Edwards, 
S. T. Logan. 

I concur in the foregoing opinion, 

S. H. Treat. 

TO JOSHUA R. STANFORD. 

Pekin, May 12, 1853.1 

Mr. Joshua R. Stanford. 

Sir: — I hope the subject-matter of this letter will 
appear a sufficient apology to you for the liberty I, 
a total stranger, take in addressing you. The per- 
sons here holding two lots under a conveyance made 
by you, as the attorney of Daniel M. Baily, now 
nearly twenty -two years ago, are in great danger of 
losing the lots, and very much, perhaps all, is to 
depend on the testimony you give as to whether you 

' The superscription of the letter is as here printed — but the cap- 
tion omits the town and state. 



i;^ The Writinors of 



£>' 



did or did not account to Baily for the proceeds 
received by you on this sale of the lots. I, therefore, 
as one of the counsel, beg of you to fully refresh your 
recollection by any means in your power before the 
time you may be called on to testify. If persons 
should come about you, and show a disposition to 
pump you on the subject, it may be no more than 
prudent to remember that it may be possible they 
design to misrepresent you and embarrass the real 
testimony you may ultimately give. It may be six 
months or a year before you are called on to testify. 

Respectfully, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO J. M. PALMER. 

Confidential. 

Springfield, Sept. 7, 1854. 

Hon. J. M. Palmer. 

Dear Sir: — You know how anxious I am that this 
Nebraska measure shall be rebuked and condemned 
everywhere. Of course I hope something from your 
position; yet I do not expect you to do anything 
which may be wrong in your own judgment; nor 
would I have you do anything personally injurious 
to yourself. You are, and always have been, hon- 
estly and sincerely a Democrat; and I know how 
painful it must be to an honest, sincere man to be 
urged by his party to the support of a measure which 
in his conscience he believes to be wrong. You have 
had a severe struggle with yourself, and you have 
determined not to swallow the wrong. Is it not just 



Abraham Lincoln 177 

to yourself that you should, in a few public speeches, 
state your reasons, and thus justify yourself? I 
wish you would; and yet I say, don't do it, if you 
think it will injure you. You may have given your 
word to vote for Major Harris; and if so, of course 
you will stick to it. But allow me to suggest that 
you should avoid speaking of this; for it probably 
would induce some of your friends in like manner 
to cast their votes. You understand. And now let 
me beg your pardon for obtruding this letter upon 
you, to whom I have ever been opposed in politics. 
Had your party omitted to make Nebraska a test of 
party fidelity, you probably would have been the 
Democratic candidate for Congress in the district. 
You deserved it, and I believe it would have been 
given you. In that case I should have been quite 
happy that Nebraska was to be rebuked at all events. 
I still should have voted for the Whig candidate; 
but I should have made no speeches, written no let- 
ters ; and you would have been elected by at least a 

thousand majority. 

Yours truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



SPEECH AT PEORIA, ILLINOIS, IN REPLY TO SENATOR 
DOUGLAS, OCTOBER l6, 1854. 

I do not rise to speak now, if I can stipulate with 
the audience to meet me here at half -past six or at 
seven o'clock. It is now several minutes past five, 
and Judge Douglas has spoken over three hours. If 

VOL. II. — 12. 



1 78 The Writings of 

you hear me at all, I wish you to hear me through. 
It will take me as long as it has taken him. That 
will carry us beyond eight o'clock at night. Now, 
every one of you who can remain that long can just 
as well get his supper, meet me at seven, and remain 
an hour or two later. The Judge has already in- 
formed you that he is to have an hour to reply to me. 
I doubt not but you have been a little surprised to 
learn that I have consented to give one of his high 
reputation and known ability this advantage of me. 
Indeed, my consenting to it, though reluctant, was 
not wholly unselfish, for I suspected, if it were under- 
stood that the Judge was entirely done, you Demo- 
crats would leave and not hear me; but by giving 
him the close, I felt confident you would stay for the 
fim of hearing him skin me. 

The audience signified their assent to the arrange- 
ment, and adjourned to seven o'clock p.m., at which 
time they reassembled, and Mr. Lincoln spoke sub- 
stantially as follows: 

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the 
propriety of its restoration, constitute the subject of 
what I am about to say. As I desire to present my 
own connected view of this subject, my remarks will 
not be specifically an answer to Judge Douglas; 
yet, as I proceed, the main points he has presented 
will arise, and will receive such respectful attention 
as I may be able to give them. I wish further to 
say that I do not propose to question the patriotism 
or to assail the motives of any man or class of men, 
but rather to confine myself strictly to the naked 



Abraham Lincoln 179 

merits of the question. I also wish to be no less than 
national in all the positions I may take, and whenever 
I take ground which others have thought, or may 
think, narrow, sectional, and dangerous to the Union, 
I hope to give a reason which will appear sufficient, 
at least to some, why I think differently. 

And as this subject is no other than part and 
parcel of the larger general question of domestic 
slavery, I wish to make and to keep the distinction 
between the existing institution and the extension 
of it so broad and so clear that no honest man can 
misunderstand me, and no dishonest one successfully 
misrepresent me. 

In order to a clear understanding of what the Mis- 
souri Compromise is, a short history of the preceding 
kindred subjects will perhaps be proper. 

When we established our independence, we did 
not own or claim the country to which this com- 
promise applies. Indeed, strictly speaking, the 
Confederacy then owned no country at all; the 
States respectively owned the cotmtry within their 
limits, and some of them owned territory beyond 
their strict State limits. Virginia thus owned the 
Northwestern Territory — ^the country out of which 
the principal part of Ohio, all Indiana, all Illinois, all 
Michigan, and all Wisconsin have since been formed. 
She also owned (perhaps within her then limits) 
what has since been formed into the State of Ken- 
tucky. North Carolina thus owned what is now the 
State of Tennessee ; and South Carolina and Georgia 
owned, in separate parts, what are now Mississippi 
and Alabama. Connecticut, I think, owned the 



i8o The Writings of 

little remaining part of Ohio, being the same where 
they now send Giddings to Congress and beat all 
creation in making cheese. 

These territories, together with the States them- 
selves, constitute all the country over which the 
Confederacy then claimed any sort of jurisdiction. 
We were then living under the Articles of Confedera- 
tion, which were superseded by the Constitution 
several years afterward. The question of ceding the 
territories to the General Government was set on 
foot. Mr. Jefferson, — the author of the Declaration 
of Independence, and otherwise a chief actor in the 
Revolution ; then a delegate in Congress ; afterward, 
twice President ; who was, is, and perhaps will con- 
tinue to be, the most distinguished politician of our 
history; a Virginian by birth and continued resi- 
dence, and withal a slaveholder, — conceived the idea 
of taking that occasion to prevent slavery ever going 
into the Northwestern Territory. He prevailed on 
the Virginia Legislature to adopt his views, and to 
cede the Territory, making the prohibition of slavery 
therein a condition of the deed.^ Congress accepted 
the cession with the condition ; and the first ordinance 
(which the acts of Congress were then called) for the 
government of the Territory provided that slavery 
should never be permitted therein. This is the famed 
"Ordinance of '87," so often spoken of. 

Thenceforward for sixty-one years, and tmtil, in 
1848, the last scrap of this Territory came into the 

> Mr. Lincoln afterward authorized the correction of the error into 
which the report here falls, with regard to the prohibition being made 
a condition of the deed. It was not a condition. 



Abraham Lincoln i8i 

Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in 
quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what 
Jefferson foresaw and intended — the happy home of 
teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, 
and no slave among them. 

Thus, with the author of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, the policy of prohibiting slavery in new 
territory originated. Thus, away back to the Con- 
stitution, in the pure, fresh, free breath of the 
Revolution, the State of Virginia and the national 
Congress put that policy into practice. Thus, through 
more than sixty of the best years of the republic, did 
that policy steadily work to its great and beneficent 
end. And thus, in those five States, and in five 
millions of free, enterprising people, we have before 
us the rich fruits of this policy. 

But now new light breaks upon us. Now Congress 
declares this ought never to have been, and the like 
of it must never be again. The sacred right of self- 
government is grossly violated by it. We even find 
some men who drew their first breath — and every 
other breath of their lives — under this very restric- 
tion, now live in dread of absolute suffocation if they 
should be restricted in the "sacred right" of taking 
slaves to Nebraska. That perfect liberty they sigh 
for — the liberty of making slaves of other people — 
Jefferson never thought of, their own fathers never 
thought of, they never thought of themselves, a year 
ago. How fortunate for them they did not sooner 
become sensible of their great misery! Oh, how 
difficult it is to treat with respect such assaults upon 
all we have ever really held sacred! 



1 82 The Writings of 

But to return to history. In 1803 we purchased 
what was then called Louisiana, of France. It in- 
cluded the present States of Louisiana, Arkansas, 
Missouri, and Iowa; also the Territory of Minnesota, 
and the present bone of contention, Kansas and 
Nebraska. Slavery already existed among the 
French at New Orleans, and to some extent at St. 
Louis. In 1 81 2 Louisiana came into the Union as a 
slave State, without controversy. In 181 8 or '19, 
Missouri showed signs of a wish to come in with 
slavery. This was resisted by Northern members of 
Congress; and thus began the first great slavery 
agitation in the nation. This controversy lasted 
several months, and became very angry and exciting 
— ^the House of Representatives voting steadily for 
the prohibition of slavery in Missouri, and the Senate 
voting as steadily against it. Threats of the break- 
ing up of the Union were freely made, and the ablest 
public men of the day became seriously alarmed. 
At length a compromise was made, in which, as in 
all compromises, both sides yielded something. It 
was a law, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, pro- 
viding that Missouri might come into the Union with 
slavery, but that in all the remaining part of the 
territory purchased of France which lies north of 
thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, 
slavery should never be permitted. This provision 
of law is the "Missouri Compromise." In excluding 
slavery north of the line, the same language is em- 
ployed as in the Ordinance of 1787. It directly ap- 
plied to Iowa, Minnesota, and to the present bone of 
contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Whether there 



Abraham Lincoln 183 

should or should not be slavery south of that line, 
nothing was said in the law. But Arkansas con- 
stituted the principal remaining part south of the 
line ; and it has since been admitted as a slave State, 
without serious controversy. More recently, Iowa, 
north of the line, came in as a free State without con- 
troversy. Still later, Minnesota, north of the line, 
had a territorial organization without controversy. 
Texas, principally south of the line, and west of 
Arkansas, though originally within the purchase 
from France, had, in 18 19, been traded off to Spain 
in our treaty for the acquisition of Florida. It had 
thus become a part of Mexico. Mexico revolution- 
ized and became independent of Spain. American 
citizens began settling rapidly with their slaves in 
the southern part of Texas. Soon they revolution- 
ized against Mexico, and established an independent 
government of their own, adopting a constitution 
with slavery, strongly resembling the constitutions 
of our slave States, By still another rapid move, 
Texas, claiming a boundary much farther west than 
when we parted with her in 1819, was brought back 
to the United States, and admitted into the Union as 
a slave State. Then there was little or no settle- 
ment in the northern part of Texas, a considerable 
portion of which lay north of the Missouri line ; and 
in the resolutions admitting her into the Union, the 
Missouri restriction was expressly extended west- 
ward across her territory. This was in 1845, only 
nine years ago. 

Thus originated the Missouri Compromise; and 
thus has it been respected down to 1845. ^^^ even 



184 The Writings of 

four years later, in 1849, our distinguished Senator, 
in a public address, held the following language in 
relation to it : 

"The Missouri Compromise has been in practical 
operation for about a quarter of a century, and has 
received the sanction and approbation of men of all 
parties in every section of the Union. It has allayed 
ail sectional jealousies and irritations growing out of 
this vexed question, and harmonized and tranquillized 
the whole country. It has given to Henry Clay, as 
its prominent champion, the proud sobriquet of the 
"Great Pacificator," and by that title, and for that 
service, his political friends had repeatedly appealed 
to the people to rally under his standard as a Presi- 
dential candidate, as the man who had exhibited the 
patriotism and power to suppress an imholy and 
treasonable agitation, and preserve the Union. He 
was not aware that any man or any party, from any 
section of the Union, had ever urged as an objection 
to Mr. Clay that he was the great champion of the 
Missouri Compromise. On the contrary, the effort 
was made by the opponents of Mr. Clay to prove that 
he was not entitled to the exclusive merit of that 
great patriotic measure, and that the honor was 
equally due to others, as well as to him, for securing 
its adoption; that it had its origin in the hearts of 
all patriotic men, who desired to preserve and per- 
petuate the blessings of our glorious Union — an 
origin akin to that of the Constitution of the United 
States, conceived in the same spirit of fraternal 
affection, and calculated to remove forever the only 
danger which seemed to threaten, at some distant 



Abraham Lincoln 185 

day, to sever the social bond of union. All the evi- 
dences of public opinion at that day seemed to indi- 
cate that this compromise had been canonized in the 
hearts of the American people, as a sacred thing 
which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough 
to disturb." 

I do not read this extract to involve Judge Douglas 
in an inconsistency. If he afterward thought he had 
been wrong, it was right for him to change. I bring 
this forward merely to show the high estimate placed 
on the Missouri Compromise by all parties up to so 
late as the year 1849. 

But going back a little in point of time. Our war 
with Mexico broke out in 1846. When Congress was 
about adjourning that session, President Polk asked 
them to place two millions of dollars under his con- 
trol, to be used by him in the recess, if found practic- 
able and expedient, in negotiating a treaty of peace 
with Mexico, and acquiring some part of her territory. 
A bill was duly gotten up for the purpose, and was 
progressing swimmingly in the House of Representa- 
tives, when a member by the name of David Wilmot, 
a Democrat from Pennsylvania, moved as an amend- 
ment, "Provided, that in any territory thus acquired 
there never shall be slavery." 

This is the origin of the far-famed Wilmot Proviso. 
It created a great flutter ; but it stuck like wax, was 
voted into the bill, and the bill passed with it through 
the House. The Senate, however, adjourned without 
final action on it, and so both appropriation and 
proviso were lost for the time. The war continued, 
and at the next session the President renewed his 



1 86 The Writings of 

request for the appropriation, enlarging the amount, 
I think, to three milUons. Again came the proviso, 
and defeated the measure. Congress adjourned 
again, and the war went on. In December, 1847, 
the new Congress assembled. I was in the lower 
House that term. The Wilmot Proviso, or the prin- 
ciple of it, was constantly coming up in some shape 
or other, and I think I may venture to say I voted 
for it at least forty times during the short time I was 
there. The Senate, however, held it in check, and it 
never became a law. In the spring of 1848 a treaty 
of peace was made with Mexico, by which we ob- 
tained that portion of her country which now con- 
stitutes the Territories of New Mexico and Utah and 
the present State of California. By this treaty the 
Wilmot Proviso was defeated, in so far as it was in- 
tended to be a condition of the acquisition of terri- 
tory. Its friends, however, were still determined to 
find some way to restrain slavery from getting into 
the new country. This new acquisition lay directly 
west of our old purchase from France, and extended 
west to the Pacific Ocean, and was so situated that if 
the Missouri line should be extended straight west, 
the new country would be divided by such extended 
line, leaving some north and some south of it. On 
Judge Douglas's motion, a bill, or provision of a bill, 
passed the Senate to so extend the Missouri line. 
The proviso men in the House, including myself, 
voted it down, because, by implication, it gave up 
the southern part to slavery, while we were bent on 
having it all free. 

In the fall of 1848 the gold-mines were discovered 



Abraham Lincoln 187 

in California. This attracted people to it with un- 
precedented rapidity, so that on, or soon after, the 
meeting of the new Congress in December, 1849, she 
already had a population of nearly a hundred thou- 
sand, had called a convention, formed a State con- 
stitution excluding slavery, and was knocking for 
admission into the Union. The proviso men, of 
course, were for letting her in, but the Senate, always 
true to the other side, would not consent to her ad- 
mission, and there California stood, kept out of the 
Union because she would not let slavery into her 
borders. Under all the circumstances, perhaps, this 
was not wrong. There were other points of dis- 
pute connected with the general question of slav- 
ery, which equally needed adjustment. The South 
clamored for a more efficient fugitive slave law. 
The North clamored for the abolition of a peculiar 
species of slave trade in the District of Columbia, in 
connection with which, in view from the windows 
of the Capitol, a sort of negro livery-stable, where 
droves of negroes were collected, temporarily kept, 
and finally taken to Southern markets, precisely like 
droves of horses, had been openly maintained for 
fifty years. Utah and New Mexico needed territorial 
governments ; and whether slavery should or should 
not be prohibited within them was another question. 
The indefinite western boundary of Texas was to be 
settled. She was a slave State, and consequently 
the farther west the slavery men could push her 
boundary, the more slave country they secured ; and 
the farther east the slavery opponents could thrust 
the boundary back, the less slave ground was 



1 88 The Writings of 

secured. Thus this was just as clearly a slavery 
question as any of the others. 

These points all needed adjustment, and they were 
held up, perhaps wisely, to make them help adjust 
one another. The Union now, as in 1820, was 
thought to be in danger, and devotion to the Union 
rightfully inclined men to yield somewhat in points 
where nothing else could have so inclined them. A 
compromise was finally effected. The South got 
their new fugitive slave law, and the North got Cali- 
fornia (by far the best part of our acquisition from 
Mexico) as a free State. The South got a provision 
that New Mexico and Utah, when admitted as States, 
may come in with or without slavery as they may 
then choose; and the North got the slave trade 
abolished in the District of Columbia. The North 
got the western boundary of Texas thrown farther 
back eastward than the South desired; but, in turn, 
they gave Texas ten millions of dollars with which 
to pay her old debts. This is the Compromise of 
1850. 

Preceding the Presidential election of 1852, each of 
the great political parties. Democrats and Whigs, 
met in convention and adopted resolutions indorsing 
the Compromise of '50, as a "finality," a final settle- 
ment, so far as these parties could make it so, of all 
slavery agitation. Previous to this, in 185 1, the 
Illinois Legislature had indorsed it. 

During this long period of time, Nebraska had re- 
mained substantially an uninhabited country, but 
now emigration to and settlement within it began to 
take place. It is about one third as large as the pres- 



Abraham Lincoln 189 

ent United States, and its importance, so long over- 
looked, begins to come into view. The restriction of 
slavery by the Missouri Compromise directly applies 
to it — in fact was first made, and has since been main- 
tained, expressly for it. In 1853, a bill to give it a 
territorial government passed the House of Represen- 
tatives, and, in the hands of Judge Douglas, failed of 
passing only for want of time. This bill contained no 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Indeed, when it 
was assailed because it did not contain such repeal, 
Judge Douglas defended it in its existing form. On 
January 4, 1854, Judge Douglas introduces a new 
bill to give Nebraska territorial government. He 
accompanies this bill with a report, in which last he 
expressly recommends that the Missouri Compromise 
shall neither be affirmed nor repealed. Before long 
the bill is so modified as to make two territories in- 
stead of one, calling the southern one Kansas. 

Also, about a month after the introduction of the 
bill, on the Judge's own motion it is so amended as 
to declare the Missouri Compromise inoperative and 
void; and, substantially, that the people who go 
and settle there may establish slavery, or exclude it, 
as they may see fit. In this shape the bill passed 
both branches of Congress and became a law. 

This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 
The foregoing history may not be precisely accurate 
in every particular, but I am sure it is sufficiently so 
for all the use I shall attempt to make of it, and in it 
we have before us the chief material enabling us to 
judge correctly whether the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise is right or wrong. I think, and shall try 



190 The Writings of 

to show, that it is wrong — ^wrong in its direct effect, 
letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong 
in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to 
every other part of the wide world where men can be 
found inclined to take it. 

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, 
covert real zeal, for the spread of slavery, I cannot 
but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injus- 
tice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives 
our republican example of its just influence in the 
world; enables the enemies of free institutions with 
plausibility to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the 
real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity; and 
especially because it forces so many good men among 
ourselves into an open war with the very f tmdamental 
principles of civil liberty, criticising the Declaration 
of Independence, and insisting that there is no right 
principle of action but self-interest. 

Before proceeding let me say that I think I have no 
prejudice against the Southern people. They are 
just what we would be in their situation. If slavery 
did not now exist among them, they would not intro- 
duce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not 
instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses 
North and South. Doubtless there are individuals 
on both sides who would not hold slaves under any 
circumstances, and others who would gladly intro- 
duce slavery anew if it were out of existence. We 
know that some Southern men do free their slaves, 
go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while 
some Northern ones go South and become most cruel 
slave-masters. 



Abraham Lincoln 191 

When Southern people tell us that they are no 
more responsible for the origin of slavery than we 
are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that 
the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to 
get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand 
and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame 
them for not doing what I should not know how to 
do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I 
should not know what to do as to the existing institu- 
tion. My first impulse would be to free all the 
slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native 
land. But a moment's reflection would convince me 
that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there 
may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is 
impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, 
they would all perish in the next ten days ; and there 
are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough 
to carry them there in many times ten days. What 
then? Free them all, and keep them among us as 
underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters 
their condition? I think I would not hold one in 
slavery at any rate, yet the point is not clear enough 
f 01 me to denounce people upon. What next? Free 
them, and make them politically and socially our 
equals ? My own feelings will not admit of this, and 
if mine would, we well know that those of the great 
mass of whites will not. Whether this feeling ac- 
cords with justice and sound judgment is not the 
sole question, if indeed it is any part of it. A uni- 
versal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be 
safely disregarded. We cannot then make them 
equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual 



192 The Writings of 

emancipation might be adopted, but for their tardi- 
ness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethren 
of the South. 

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, 
I acknowledge them — not grudgingly, but fully and 
fairly ; and I would give them any legislation for the 
reclaiming of their fugitives which should not in its 
stringency be more likely to carry a free man into 
slavery than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang 
an innocent one. 

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more 
excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free 
territory than it would for reviving the African 
slave trade by law. The law which forbids the 
bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so 
long forbidden the taking of them into Nebraska, 
can hardy be distinguished on any moral principle, 
and the repeal of the former could find quite as 
plausible excuses as that of the latter. 

The arguments by which the repeal of the Mis- 
souri Compromise is sought to be justified are these: 
First. That the Nebraska country needed a terri- 
torial government. Second. That in various ways 
the public had repudiated that compromise and de- 
manded the repeal, and therefore should not now 
complain of it. And, lastly, That the repeal estab- 
lishes a principle which is intrinsically right. 

I will attempt an answer to each of them in its 
turn. First, then: If that country was in need of a 
territorial organization, could it not have had it as 
well without as with a repeal ? Iowa and Minnesota, 
to both of which the Missouri restriction applied, 



Abraham Lincoln 193 

had, without its repeal, each in succession, territorial 
organizations. And even the year before, a bill for 
Nebraska itself was within an ace of passing without 
the repealing clause, and this in the hands of the 
same men who are now the champions of repeal. 
Why no necessity then for repeal? But still later, 
when this very bill was first brought in, it contained 
no repeal. But, say they, because the people had 
demanded, or rather commanded, the repeal, the 
repeal was to accompany the organization whenever 
that should occur. 

Now, I deny that the public ever demanded any 
such thing — ever repudiated the Missouri Compro- 
mise, ever commanded its repeal. I deny it, and 
call for the proof. It is not contended, I believe, that 
any such command has ever been given in express 
terms. It is only said that it was done in principle. 
The support of the Wilmot Proviso is the first fact 
mentioned to prove that the Missouri restriction was 
repudiated in principle, and the second is the refusal 
to extend the Missouri line over the country acquired 
from Mexico. These are near enough alike to be 
treated together. The one was to exclude the 
chances of slavery from the whole new acquisition 
by the lump, and the other was to reject a division 
of it, by which one half was to be given up to those 
chances. Now, whether this was a repudiation of 
the Missouri fine in principle depends upon whether 
the Missouri law contained any principle requir- 
ing the line to be extended over the country acquired 
from Mexico. I contend it did not. I insist that it 
contained no general principle, but that it was, in 

VOL. n. — 13. 



194 The Writings of 

every sense, specific. That its terms limit it to the 
country purchased from France is undenied and un- 
deniable. It could have no principle beyond the in- 
tention of those who made it. They did not intend 
to extend the line to country which they did not own. 
If they intended to extend it in the event of acquir- 
ing additional territory, why did they not say so? 
It was just as easy to say that "in all the country 
west of the Mississippi which we now own, or may 
hereafter acquire, there shall never be slavery," as 
to sa}^ what they did say ; and they would have said 
it if they had meant it. An intention to extend the 
law is not only not mentioned in the law, but is not 
mentioned in any contemporaneous history. Both 
the law itself, and the history of the times, are a 
blank as to any principle of extension; and by 
neither the known rules of construing statutes and 
contracts, nor by common sense, can any such prin- 
ciple be inferred. 

Another fact showing the specific character of the 
Missouri law — showing that it intended no more 
than it expressed, showing that the line was not in- 
tended as a universal dividing line between free and 
slave territory, present and prospective, north of 
which slavery could never go — is the fact that by 
that very law Missouri came in as a slave State, north 
of the line. If that law contained any prospective 
principle, the whole law must be looked to in order 
to ascertain what the principle was. And by this 
rule the South could fairly contend that, inasmuch 
as they got one slave State north of the line at the 
inception of the law, they have the right to have 



Abraham Lincoln 195 

another given them north of it occasionally, now and 
then, in the indefinite westward extension of the 
line. This demonstrates the absurdity of attempt- 
ing to deduce a prospective principle from the Mis- 
souri Compromise line. 

When we voted for the Wilmot Proviso we were 
voting to keep slavery out of the whole Mexican 
acquisition, and little did we think we were thereby 
voting to let it into Nebraska lying several hundred 
miles distant. When we voted against extending 
the Missouri line, little did we think we were voting 
to destroy the old line, then of near thirty years' 
standing. 

To argue that we thus repudiated the Missouri 
Compromise is no less absurd than it would be to 
argue that because we have so far forborne to ac- 
quire Cuba, we have thereby, in principle, repudiated 
our former acquisitions and determined to throw 
them out of the Union. No less absurd than it 
would be to say that because I may have refused to 
build an addition to my house, I thereby have de- 
cided to destroy the existing house! And if I catch 
you setting fire to my house, you will turn upon me 
and say I instructed you to do it! 

The most conclusive argument, however, that 
while for the Wilmot Proviso, and while voting 
against the extension of the Missouri line, we never 
thought of disturbing the original Missouri Com- 
promise, is found in the fact that there was then, and 
still is, an unorganized tract of fine country, nearly 
as large as the State of Missouri, lying immedi- 
ately west of Arkansas and south of the Missouri 



196 The Writings of 

Compromise line, and that we never attempted to 
prohibit slavery as to it. I wish particular attention 
to this. It adjoins the original Missouri Compromise 
line by its northern boimdary, and consequently is 
part of the country into which by implication slavery 
was permitted to go by that compromise. There it 
has lain open ever since, and there it still lies, and 
3^et no effort has been made at any time to wrest it 
from the South. In all our struggles to prohibit 
slavery within our Mexican acquisitions, we never 
so much as lifted a finger to prohibit it as to this 
tract. Is not this entirely conclusive that at all 
times we have held the Missouri Compromise as a 
sacred thing, even when against ourselves as well as 
when for us ? 

Senator Douglas sometimes says the Missouri line 
itself was in principle only an extension of the line of 
the Ordinance of '87 — ^that is to say, an extension of 
the Ohio River. I think this is weak enough on its 
face. I will remark, however, that, as a glance at 
the map will show, the Missouri line is a long way 
farther south than the Ohio, and that if our Senator 
in proposing his extension had stuck to the principle 
of jogging southward, perhaps it might not have 
been voted down so readily. 

But next it is said that the compromises of '50, 
and the ratification of them by both political parties 
in '52, established a new principle which required 
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. This again 
I deny, I deny it, and demand the proof. I have 
already stated fully what the compromises of '50 are. 
That particular part of those measures from which 



Abraham Lincoln 197 

the virtual repeal of the Missouri Compromise is 
sought to be inferred (for it is admitted they contain 
nothing about it in express terms) is the provision in 
the Utah and New Mexico laws which permits them 
when they seek admission into the Union as States 
to come in with or without slavery, as they shall 
then see fit. Now I insist this provision was made 
for Utah and New Mexico, and for no other place 
whatever. It had no more direct reference to Ne- 
braska than it had to the territories of the moon. 
But, say they, it had reference to Nebraska in prin- 
ciple. Let us see. The North consented to this pro- 
vision, not because they considered it right in itself, 
but because they were compensated — paid for it. 

They at the same time got California into the 
Union as a free State. This was far the best part 
of all they had struggled for by the Wilmot Proviso. 
They also got the area of slavery somewhat narrowed 
in the settlement of the boundary of Texas. Also 
they got the slave trade abolished in the District of 
Columbia. 

For all these desirable objects the North could 
afford to yield something ; and they did yield to the 
South the Utah and New Mexico provision. I do 
not mean that the whole North, or even a majority, 
yielded, when the law passed; but enough yielded, 
when added to the vote of the South, to carry the 
measure. Nor can it be pretended that the prin- 
ciple of this arrangement requires us to permit the 
same provision to be applied to Nebraska, without 
any equivalent at all. Give us another free State; 
press the boundary of Texas still farther back ; give 



198 The Writings of 

us another step toward the destruction of slavery in 
the District, and you present us a similar case. But 
ask us not to repeat, for nothing, what you paid for 
in the first instance. If you wish the thing again, 
pay again. That is the principle of the compro- 
mises of '50, if, indeed, they had any principles 
beyond their specific terms — it was the system of 
equivalents. 

Again, if Congress, at that time, intended that all 
future Territories should, when admitted as States, 
come in with or without slavery at their own option, 
why did it not say so? With such a universal pro- 
vision, all know the bills could not have passed. Did 
they, then — could they — establish a principle con- 
trary to their own intention? Still further, if they 
intended to establish the principle that, whenever 
Congress had control, it should be left to the people 
to do as they thought fit with slavery, why did they 
not authorize the people of the District of Colum- 
bia, at their option, to abolish slavery within their 
limits ? 

I personally know that this has not been left un- 
done because it was unthought of. It was fre- 
quently spoken of by members of Congress, and by 
citizens of Washington, six years ago; and I heard 
no one express a doubt that a system of gradual 
emancipation, with compensation to owners, would 
meet the approbation of a large majority of the 
white people of the District. But without the action 
of Congress they could say nothing; and Congress 
said "No." In the measures of 1850, Congress had 
the subject of slavery in the District expressly on 



Abraham Lincoln 199 

hand. If they were then estabhshing the principle 
of allowing the people to do as they please with 
slavery, why did they not apply the principle to that 
people ? 

Again, it is claimed that by the resolutions of the 
Illinois Legislature, passed in 1851, the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise was demanded. This I deny 
also. Whatever may be worked out by a criticism 
of the language of those resolutions, the people have 
never understood them as being any more than an 
indorsement of the compromises of 1850, and a re- 
lease of our senators from voting for the Wilmot 
Proviso. The whole people are living witnesses that 
this only was their view. Finally, it is asked, "If 
we did not mean to apply the Utah and New Mexico 
provision to all future territories, what did we mean 
when we, in 1852, indorsed the compromises of 
1850?" 

For myself I can answer this question most easily. 
I meant not to ask a repeal or modification of the 
Fugitive Slave law. I meant not to ask for the aboli- 
tion of slavery in the District of Columbia. I meant 
not to resist the admission of Utah and New Mexico, 
even should they ask to come in as slave States. I 
meant nothing about additional Territories, because, 
as I understood, we then had no Territory whose 
character as to slavery was not already settled. As 
to Nebraska, I regarded its character as being fixed 
by the Missouri Compromise for thirty years — as un- 
alterably fixed as that of my own home in Illinois. 
As to new acquisitions, I said, "Sufficient unto 
the day is the evil thereof." When we make new 



200 The Writings of 

acquisitions, we will, as heretofore, try to manage them 
somehow. That is my answer ; that is what I meant 
and said; and I appeal to the people to say each for 
himself whether that is not also the universal mean- 
ing of the free States. 

And now, in turn, let me ask a few questions. If, 
by any or all these matters, the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise was commanded, why was not the com- 
mand sooner obeyed? Why was the repeal omitted 
in the Nebraska Bill of 1853? Why was it omitted 
in the original bill of 1854? Why in the accompany- 
ing report was such a repeal characterized as a de- 
parture from the course pursued in 1850 and its 
continued omission recommended? 

I am aware Judge Douglas now argues that the 
subsequent express repeal is no substantial alteration 
of the bill. This argument seems wonderful to me. 
It is as if one should argue that white and black are 
not different. He admits, however, that there is a 
literal change in the bill, and that he made the 
change in deference to other senators who would not 
support the bill without. This proves that those 
other senators thought the change a substantial one, 
and that the Judge thought their opinions worth de- 
ferring to. His own opinions, therefore, seem not to 
rest on a very firm basis, even in his own mind ; and 
I suppose the world believes, and will continue to be- 
lieve, that precisely on the substance of that change 
this whole agitation has arisen. 

I conclude, then, that the public never demanded 
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 

I now come to consider whether the appeal, with 



Abraham Lincoln 201 

its avowed principles, is intrinsically right. I insist 
that it is not. Take the particular case. A con- 
troversy had arisen between the advocates and op- 
ponents of slavery, in relation to its establishment 
within the country we had purchased of France. 
The southern, and then best, part of the purchase 
was already in as a slave State. The controversy 
was settled by also letting Missouri in as a slave 
State; but with the agreement that within all the 
remaining part of the purchase, north of a certain 
line, there should never be slavery. As to what was 
to be done with the remaining part, south of the line, 
nothing was said; but perhaps the fair implication 
was, it should come in with slavery if it should so 
choose. The southern part, except a portion here- 
tofore mentioned, afterward did come in with 
slavery, as the State of Arkansas. All these many 
years, since 1820, the northern part had remained a 
wilderness. At length settlements began in it also. 
In due course Iowa came in as a free State, and 
Minnesota was given a territorial government, with- 
out removing the slavery restriction. Finally, the 
sole remaining part north of the line — Kansas and 
Nebraska — ^was to be organized; and it is proposed, 
and carried, to blot out the old dividing line of thirty- 
four years' standing, and to open the whole of that 
country to the introduction of slavery. Now this, 
to my mind, is manifestly unjust. After an angry 
and dangerous controversy, the parties made friends 
by dividing the bone of contention. The one party 
first appropriates her own share, beyond all power 
to be disturbed in the possession of it, and then seizes 



k 



202 The Writines of 



t>' 



the share of the other party. It is as if two starving 
men had divided their only loaf, the one had hastily 
swallowed his half, and then grabbed the other's 
half just as he was putting it to his mouth. 

Let me here drop the main argument, to notice what 
I consider rather an inferior matter. It is argued that 
slavery will not go to Kansas and Nebraska, in any 
event. This is a palliation, a lullaby. I have some 
hope that it will not ; but let us not be too confident. 
As to climate, a glance at the map shows that there 
are five slave States — Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
Kentucky, and Missouri, and also the District of Co- 
lumbia, all north of the Missouri Compromise line. 
The census returns of 1850 show that within these 
there are eight hundred and sixty-seven thousand 
two himdred and seventy-six slaves, being more than 
one fourth of all the slaves in the nation. 

It is not climate, then, that will keep slavery out 
of these Territories. Is there anything in the pe- 
culiar nature of the country ? Missouri adjoins these 
Territories by her entire western boundary, and 
slavery is already within every one of her western 
counties. I have even heard it said that there are 
more slaves in proportion to whites in the north- 
western county of Missouri than within any other 
county in the State. Slavery pressed entirely up to 
the old western boundary of the State, and when 
rather recently a part of that boundary at the north- 
west was moved out a little farther west, slavery 
followed on quite up to the new line. Now, when the 
restriction is removed, what is to prevent it from 
going still farther? Climate will not, no peculiarity 



Abraham Lincoln 203 

of the country will, nothing in nature will. Will the 
disposition of the people prevent it ? Those nearest 
the scene are all in favor of the extension. The 
Yankees who are opposed to it may be most nu- 
merous; but, in military phrase, the battlefield is 
too far from their base of operations. 

But it is said there now is no law in Nebraska on 
the subject of slavery, and that, in such case, taking 
a slave there operates his freedom. That is good 
book-law, but it is not the rule of actual practice. 
Wherever slavery is it has been first introduced 
without law. The oldest laws we find concerning it 
are not laws introducing it, but regulating it as an 
already existing thing. A white man takes his slave 
to Nebraska now. Who will inform the negro that 
he is free? Who will take him before court to test 
the question of his freedom? In ignorance of his 
legal emancipation he is kept chopping, splitting, and 
plowing. Others are brought, and move on in the 
same track. At last, if ever the time for voting 
comes on the question of slavery the institution 
already, in fact, exists in the country, and cannot 
well be removed. The fact of its presence, and the 
difficulty of its removal, will carry the vote in its 
favor. Keep it out until a vote is taken, and a vote 
in favor of it cannot be got in any population of forty 
thousand on earth, who have been drawn together 
by the ordinary motives of emigration and settle- 
ment. To get slaves into the Territory simul- 
taneously with the whites in the incipient stages of 
settlement is the precise stake played for and won in 
this Nebraska measure. 



204 The Writings of 

The question is asked us : 'Tf slaves will go in not- 
withstanding the general principle of law liberates 
them, why would they not equally go in against posi- 
tive statute law — ^go in, even if the Missouri restric- 
tion were maintained! " I answer, because it takes a 
much bolder man to venture in with his property in 
the latter case than in the former ; because the posi- 
tive Congressional enactment is known to and re- 
spected by all, or nearly all, whereas the negative 
principle that no law is free law is not much known 
except among lawyers. We have some experience 
of this practical difference. In spite of the Ordinance 
of '87, a few negroes were brought into Illinois, and 
held in a state of quasi-slavery, not enough, however, 
to carry a vote of the people in favor of the institution 
when they came to form a constitution. But into 
the adjoining Missouri country, where there was no 
Ordinance of '87, — ^was no restriction, — they were 
carried ten times, nay, a hundred times, as fast, and 
actually made a slave State. This is fact — naked 
fact. 

Another lullaby argument is that taking slaves to 
new countries does not increase their number, does 
not make any one slave who would otherwise be free. 
There is some truth in this, and I am glad of it ; but 
it is not wholly true. The African slave trade is not 
yet effectually suppressed ; and, if we make a reason- 
able deduction for the white people among us who 
are foreigners and the descendants of foreigners ar- 
riving here since 1808, we shall find the increase of 
the black population outrunning that of the white 
to an extent unaccountable, except by supposing 



Abraham Lincoln 205 

that some of them, too, have been coming from 
Africa. If this be so, the opening of new countries 
to the institution increases the demand for and aug- 
ments the price of slaves, and so does, in fact, make 
slaves of freemen, by causing them to be brought 
from Africa and sold into bondage. 

But however this may be, we know the opening of 
new countries to slavery tends to the perpetuation 
of the institution, and so does keep men in slavery 
who would otherwise be free. This result we do not 
feel like favoring, and we are under no legal obliga- 
tion to suppress our feelings in this respect. 

Equal justice to the South, it is said, requires us 
to consent to the extension of slavery to new coun- 
tries. That is to say, inasmuch as you do not object 
to my taking my hog to Nebraska, therefore I must 
not object to your taking your slave. Now, I admit 
that this is perfectly logical if there is no difference 
between hogs and negroes. But while you thus re- 
quire me to deny the humanity of the negro, I wish 
to ask whether you of the South, yourselves, have 
ever been willing to do as much? It is kindly pro- 
vided that of all those who come into the world only 
a small percentage are natural tyrants. That per- 
centage is no larger in the slave States than in the 
free. The great majority South, as well as North, 
have human sympathies, of which they can no more 
divest themselves than they can of their sensibility 
to physical pain. These sympathies in the bosoms 
of the Southern people manifest, in many ways, 
their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their con- 
sciousness that, after all, there is humanity in the 



2o6 The Writings of 

negro. If they deny this, let me address them a few- 
plain questions. In 1820 you joined the North, 
almost unanimously, in declaring the African slave 
trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment 
of death. Why did you do this ? If you did not feel 
that it was wrong, why did you join in providing 
that men should be hung for it? The practice was 
no more than bringing wild negroes from Africa to 
such as would buy them. But you never thought of 
hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, 
wild buffaloes, or wild bears. 

Again, you have among you a sneaking individual 
of the class of native tyrants known as the "slave- 
dealer." He watches your necessities, and crawls 
up to buy your slave, at a speculating price. If you 
cannot help it, you sell to him ; but if you can help it, 
you drive him from your door. You despise him 
utterly. You do not recognize him as a friend, or 
even as an honest man. Your children must not 
play with his; they may rollick freely with the little 
negroes, but not with the slave -dealer's children. 
If you are obliged to deal with him, you try to get 
through the job without so much as touching him. 
It is common with you to join hands with the men 
you meet, but with the slave-dealer you avoid the 
ceremony — instinctively shrinking from the snaky 
contact. If he grows rich and retires from business, 
you still remember him, and still keep up the ban of 
non-intercourse upon him and his family. Now, 
why is this ? You do not so treat the man who deals 
in com, cotton, or tobacco. 

And yet again : There are in the United States and 



Abraham Lincoln 207 

Territories, including the District of Columbia, 433,- 
643 free blacks. At five hundred dollars per head 
they are worth over two hundred milHons of dollars. 
How conies this vast amount of property to be run- 
ning about without owners? We do not see free 
horses or free cattle running at large. How is this ? 
All these free blacks are the descendants of slaves, 
or have been slaves themselves ; and they would be 
slaves now but for something which has operated on 
their white owners, inducing them at vast pecuniary 
sacrifice to liberate them. What is that something ? 
Is there any mistaking it? In all these cases it is 
your sense of justice and human sympathy continu- 
ally telling you that the poor negro has some natural 
right to himself — that those who deny it and make 
mere merchandise of him deserve kickings, contempt, 
and death. 

And now why will you ask us to deny the human- 
ity of the slave, and estimate him as only the equal 
of the hog ? Why ask us to do what you will not do 
yourselves ? Why ask us to do for nothing what two 
hundred millions of dollars could not induce you 
to do? 

But one great argument in support of the repeal 
of the Missouri Compromise is still to come. That 
argument is "the sacred right of self-government." 
It seems our distinguished Senator has found great 
difficulty in getting his antagonists, even in the 
Senate, to meet him fairly on this argument. Some 
poet has said : 

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." 
At the hazard of being thought one of the fools of 



2o8 The Writings of 

this quotation, I meet that argument — I rush in — I 
take that bull by the horns. I trust I understand 
and truly estimate the right of self-government. My 
faith in the proposition that each man should do 
precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively 
his own lies at the foundation of the sense of justice 
there is in me. I extend the principle to communi- 
ties of men as well as to individuals. I so extend it 
because it is politically wise, as well as naturally 
just; politically wise in saving us from broils about 
matters which do not concern us. Here, or at Wash- 
ington, I would not trouble myself with the oyster 
laws of Virginia, or the cranberry laws of Indiana. 
The doctrine of self-government is right, — abso- 
lutely and eternally right, — ^but it has no just ap- 
plication as here attempted. Or perhaps I should 
rather say that whether it has such application de- 
pends upon whether a negro is or is not a man. If 
he is not a man, in that case he who is a man may as 
a matter of self-government do just what he pleases 
with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that 
extent a total destruction of self-government to say 
that he too shall not govern himself? When the 
white man governs himself, that is self-government; 
but when he governs himself and also governs an- 
other man, that is more than self-government — that 
is despotism. If the negro is a man, why, then, my 
ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created 
equal," and that there can be no moral right in con- 
nection with one man's making a slave of another. 

Judge Douglas frequently, with bitter irony and 
sarcasm, paraphrases our argument by saying : ' ' The 



Abraham Lincoln 209 

white people of Nebraska are good enough to govern 
themselves, but they are not good enough to govern 
a few miserable negroes ! ' ' 

Well, I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are 
and will continue to be as good as the average of 
people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What 
I do say is that no man is good enough to govern 
another man without that other's consent. I say 
this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of 
American republicanism. Our Declaration of Inde- 
pendence says: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all 
men are created equal; that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that 
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. That to secure these rights, govern- 
ments are instituted among men, deriving their 

JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." 

I have quoted so much at this time merely to show 
that, according to our ancient faith, the just powers 
of government are derived from the consent of the 
governed. Now the relation of master and slave is 
pro tanto a total violation of this principle. The 
master not only governs the slave without his con- 
sent, but he governs him by a set of rules altogether 
different from those which he prescribes for himself. 
Allow all the governed an equal voice in the govern- 
ment, and that, and that only, is self-government. 

Let it not be said that I am contending for the 
establishment of political and social equality be- 
tween the whites and blacks. I have already said 
the contrary. I am not combating the argument of 

VOL. II. 14. 



2IO The Writings of 

necessity, arising from the fact that the blacks are 
already among us; but I am combating what is set 
up as moral argument for allowing them to be taken 
where they have never yet been — arguing against 
the extension of a bad thing, which, where it already 
exists, we must of necessity manage as we best can. 

In support of his application of the doctrine of 
self-government. Senator Douglas has sought to 
bring to his aid the opinions and examples of our 
Revolutionary fathers. I am glad he has done this. 
I love the sentiments of those old-time men, and 
shall be most happy to abide by their opinions. He 
shows us that when it was in contemplation for the 
colonies to break off from Great Britain, and set up 
a new government for themselves, several of the 
States instructed their delegates to go for the meas- 
ure, provided each State should be allowed to regu- 
late its domestic concerns in its own way. I do not 
quote ; but this in substance. This was right ; I see 
nothing objectionable in it. I also think it probable 
that it had some reference to the existence of slavery 
among them. I will not deny that it had. But had 
it any reference to the carrying of slavery into new 
countries? That is the question, and we will let the 
fathers themselves answer it. 

This same generation of men, and mostly the same 
individuals of the generation who declared this prin- 
ciple, who declared independence, who fought the 
war of the Revolution through, who afterward made 
the Constitution under which we still live — these 
same men passed the Ordinance of '87, declaring that 
slavery should never go to the Northwest Territory. 



J 



Abraham Lincoln 211 

I have no doubt Judge Douglas thinks they were very 
inconsistent in this. It is a question of discrimina- 
tion between them and him. But there is not an 
inch of ground left for his claiming that their opin- 
ions, their example, their authority, are on his side 
in the controversy. 

Again, is not Nebraska, while a Territory, a part 
of us? Do we not own the country? And if we 
surrender the control of it, do we not surrender the 
right of self-government? It is part of ourselves. 
If you say we shall not control it, because it is only 
part, the same is true of every other part ; and when 
all the parts are gone, what has become of the whole ? 
Whau is then left of us? What use for the General 
Government, when there is nothing left for it to 
govern ? 

But you say this question should be left to the 
people of Nebraska, because they are more particu- 
larly interested. If this be the rule, you must leave 
it to each individual to say for himself whether he 
will have slaves. What better moral right have 
thirty-one citizens of Nebraska to say that the 
thirty-second shall not hold slaves than the people of 
the thirty-one States have to say that slavery shall 
not go into the thirty-second State at all? 

But if it is a sacred right for the people of Nebraska 
to take and hold slaves there, it is equally their 
sacred right to buy them where they can buy them 
cheapest; and that, undoubtedly, will be on the 
coast of Africa, provided you will consent not to 
hang them for going there to buy them. You must 
remove this restriction, too, from the sacred right of 



212 The Writings of 

self-government. I am aware you say that taking 
slaves from the States to Nebraska does not make 
slaves of freemen ; but the African slave-trader can 
say just as much. He does not catch free negroes 
and bring them here. He finds them already slaves 
in the hands of their black captors, and he honestly 
buys them at the rate of a red cotton handkerchief a 
head. This is very cheap, and it is a great abridg- 
ment of the sacred right of self-government to hang 
men for engaging in this profitable trade. 

Another important objection to this application of 
the right of self-government is that it enables the 
first few to deprive the succeeding many of a free 
exercise of the right of self-government. The first 
few may get slavery in, and the subsequent many 
cannot easily get it out. How common is the re- 
mark now in the slave States, " If we were only clear 
of our slaves, how much better it would be for us." 
They are actually deprived of the privilege of gov- 
erning themselves as they would, by the action of a 
very few in the beginning. The same thing was true 
of the whole nation at the time our Constitution was 
formed. 

Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other 
new Territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern 
to the people who may go there. The whole nation 
is interested that the best use shall be made of these 
Territories. We want them for homes of free white 
people. This they cannot be, to any considerable 
extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. 
Slave States are places for poor white people to re- 
move from, not to remove to. New free States are 



Abraham Lincoln 213 

the places for poor people to go to, and better their 
condition. For this use the nation needs these 
Territories. 

Still further: there are constitutional relations 
between the slave and free States which are degrad- 
ing to the latter. We are under legal obligations to 
catch and return their runaway slaves to them: a 
sort of dirty, disagreeable job, which, I believe, as a 
general rule, the slaveholders will not perform for 
one another. Then again, in the control of the gov- 
ernment — the management of the partnership affairs 
— they have greatly the advantage of us. By the 
Constitution each State has two senators, each has a 
number of representatives in proportion to the num- 
ber of its people, and each has a number of Presi- 
dential electors equal to the whole number of its 
senators and representatives together. But in as- 
certaining the number of the people for this purpose, 
five slaves are counted as being equal to three whites. 
The slaves do not vote; they are only counted and 
so used as to swell the influence of the white people's 
votes. The practical effect of this is more aptly 
shown by a comparison of the States of South Caro- 
lina and Maine. South Carolina has six representa- 
tives, and so has Maine; South Carolina has eight 
Presidential electors, and so has Maine. This is pre- 
cise equality so far; and of course they are equal in 
senators, each having two. Thus in the control of 
the government the two States are equals precisely. 
But how are they in the number of their white people ? 
Maine has 581,813, while South Carolina has 274,567 ; 
Maine has twice as many as South Carolina, and 



214 The Writings of 

32,679 over. Thus , each white man in South CaroHna 
is more than the double of any man in Maine. This 
is all because South Carolina, besides her free people, 
has 384,984 slaves. The South Carolinian has pre- 
cisely the same advantage over the white man in 
every other free State as well as in Maine. He is 
more than the double of any one of us in this crowd. 
The same advantage, but not to the same extent, is 
held by all the citizens of the slave States over those 
of the free; and it is an absolute truth, without an 
exception, that there is no voter in any slave State 
but who has more legal power in the government 
than any voter in any free State. There is no in- 
stance of exact equality; and the disadvantage is 
against us the whole chapter through. This prin- 
ciple, in the aggregate, gives the slave States in the 
present Congress twenty additional representatives, 
being seven more than the whole majority by which 
they passed the Nebraska Bill. 

Now all this is manifestly unfair; yet I do not 
mention it to complain of it, in so far as it is already 
settled. It is in the Constitution, and I do not for 
that cause, or any other cause, propose to destroy, or 
alter, or disregard the Constitution. I stand to it, 
fairly, fully, and firmly. 

But when I am told I must leave it altogether to 
other people to say whether new partners are to be 
bred up and brought into the firm, on the same de- 
grading terms against me, I respectfully demur. I 
insist that whether I shall be a whole man or only 
the half of one, in comparison with others is a ques- 
tion in which I am somewhat concerned, and one 



Abraham Lincoln 215 

which no other man can have a sacred right of de- 
ciding for me. If I am wrong in this, if it really be 
a sacred right of self-government in the man who 
shall go to Nebraska to decide whether he will be the 
equal of me or the double of me, then, after he shall 
have exercised that right, and thereby shall have re- 
duced me to a still smaller fraction of a man than I 
already am, I should like for some gentleman, deeply 
skilled in the mysteries of sacred rights, to provide 
himself with a microscope, and peep about, and find 
out, if he can, what has become of my sacred rights. 
They will surely be too small for detection with the 
naked eye. 

Finally, I insist that if there is anything which it 
is the duty of the whole people to never intrust to any 
hands but their own, that thing is the preservation 
and perpetuity of their own liberties and institutions. 
And if they shall think, as I do, that the extension 
of slavery endangers them more than any or all other 
causes, how recreant to themselves if they submit 
the question, and with it the fate of their country, 
to a mere handful of men bent only on self-interest. 
If this question of slavery extension were an insig- 
nificant one — one having no power to do harm — it 
might be shuffled aside in this way ; and being, as it 
is, the great Behemoth of danger, shall the strong 
grip of the nation be loosened upon him, to intrust 
him to the hands of such feeble keepers ? 

I have done with this mighty argument of self- 
government. Go, sacred thing! Go in peace. 

But Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving 
measure. Well, I too go for saving the Union. 



2i6 The Writings of 

Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the exten- 
sion of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as 
I would consent to any great evil to avoid a greater 
one. But when I go to Union-saving, I must be- 
lieve, at least, that the means I employ have some 
adaptation to the end. To my mind, Nebraska has 
no such adaptation. 

*Tt hath no relish of salvation in it.'* 

It is an aggravation, rather, of the only one thing 
which ever endangers the Union. When it came 
upon us, all was peace and quiet. The nation was 
looking to the forming of new bonds of union, and 
a long course of peace and prosperity seemed to lie 
before us. In the whole range of possibility, there 
scarcely appears to me to have been anything out of 
which the slavery agitation could have been revived, 
except the very project of repealing the Missouri 
Compromise. Every inch of territory we owned 
already had a definite settlement of the slavery 
question, by which all parties were pledged to abide. 
Indeed, there was no uninhabited country on the 
continent which we could acquire, if we except some 
extreme northern regions which are wholly out of the 
question. 

In this state of affairs the Genius of Discord him- 
self could scarcely have invented a way of again 
setting us by the ears but by turning back and de- 
stroying the peace measures of the past. The coun- 
sels of that Genius seem to have prevailed. The 
Missouri Compromise was repealed ; and here we are 
in the midst of a new slavery agitation, such, I think, 



Abraham Lincoln 217 

as we have never seen before. Who is responsible 
for this ? Is it those who resist the measure, or those 
who causelessly brought it forward, and pressed it 
through, having reason to know, and in fact know- 
ing, it must and would be so resisted ? It could not 
but be expected by its author that it would be looked 
upon as a measure for the extension of slavery, ag- 
gravated by a gross breach of faith. 

Argue as you will and long as you will, this is the 
naked front and aspect of the measure. And in this 
aspect it could not but produce agitation. Slavery 
is founded in the selfishness of man's nature — oppo- 
sition to it in his love of justice. These principles 
are at eternal antagonism, and when brought into 
collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, 
shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly 
follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise, repeal all 
compromises, repeal the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal 
human nature. It still will be the abundance of 
man's heart that slavery extension is wrong, and out 
of the abundance of his heart his mouth will con- 
tinue to speak. 

The structure, too, of the Nebraska Bill is very 
peculiar. The people are to decide the question of 
slavery for themselves; but when they are to decide, 
or how they are to decide, or whether, when the 
question is once decided, it is to remain so or is to be 
subject to an indefinite succession of new trials, the 
law does not say. Is it to be decided by the first 
dozen settlers who arrive there, or is it to await the 
arrival of a hundred ? Is it to be decided by a vote 



2i8 The Writings of 

of the people or a vote of the Legislature, or, indeed, 
by a vote of any sort? To these questions the law- 
gives no answer. There is a mystery about this; 
for when a member proposed to give the Legislature 
express authority to exclude slavery, it was hooted 
down by the friends of the bill. This fact is worth 
remembering. Some Yankees in the East are send- 
ing emigrants to Nebraska to exclude slavery from 
it; and, so far as I can judge, they expect the ques- 
tion to be decided by voting in some way or other. 
But the Missourians are awake, too. They are 
w^ithin a stone 's-throw of the contested ground. 
They hold meetings and pass resolutions, in which 
not the slightest allusion to voting is made. They 
resolve that slavery already exists in the Territory; 
that more shall go there; that they, remaining in 
Missouri, will protect it, and that abolitionists shall 
be hung or driven away. Through all this bowie- 
knives and six-shooters are seen plainly enough, but 
never a glimpse of the ballot-box. 

And, really, what is the result of all this? Each 
party within having numerous and determined 
backers without, is it not probable that the contest 
will come to blows and bloodshed? Could there be 
a more apt invention to bring about collision and 
violence on the slavery question than this Nebraska 
project is ? I do not charge or believe that such was 
intended by Congress; but if they had literally 
formed a ring and placed champions within it to fight 
out the controversy, the fight could be no more likely 
to come off than it is. And if this fight should begin, 
is it likely to take a very peaceful, Union-saving 



Abraham Lincoln 219 

turn ? Will not the first drop of blood so shed be the 
real knell of the Union ? 

The Missouri Compromise ought to be restored. 
For the sake of the Union, it ought to be restored. 
We ought to elect a House of Representatives which 
will vote its restoration. If by any means we omit 
to do this, what follows? Slavery may or may not 
be established in Nebraska. But whether it be or 
not, we shall have repudiated — discarded from the 
councils of the nation — the spirit of compromise; 
for who, after this, will ever trust in a national com- 
promise? The spirit of mutual concession — that 
spirit which first gave us the Constitution, and which 
has thrice saved the Union — ^we shall have strangled 
and cast from us forever. And what shall we have 
in lieu of it? The South flushed with triumph and 
tempted to excess ; the North, betrayed as they be- 
lieve, brooding on wrong and burning for revenge. 
One side will provoke, the other resent. The one 
will taunt, the other defy; one aggresses, the other 
retaliates. Already a few in the North defy all con- 
stitutional restraints, resist the execution of the 
Fugitive Slave law, and even menace the institution 
of slavery in the States where it exists. Already a 
few in the South claim the constitutional right to 
take and to hold slaves in the free States, demand 
the revival of the slave trade, and demand a treaty 
with Great Britain by which fugitive slaves may be 
reclaimed from Canada. As yet they are but few on 
either side. It is a grave question for lovers of the 
Union whether the final destruction of the Missouri 
Compromise, and with it the spirit of all compromise, 



2 20 The Writings of 

will or will not embolden and embitter each of these, 
and fatally increase the number of both. 

But restore the compromise, and what then? 
We thereby restore the national faith, the national 
confidence, the national feeling of brotherhood. We 
thereby reinstate the spirit of concession and com- 
promise, that spirit which has never failed us in past 
perils, and which may be safely trusted for all the 
future. The South ought to join in doing this. The 
peace of the nation is as dear to them as to us. In 
memories of the past and hopes of the future, they 
share as largely as we. It would be on their part a 
great act — ^great in its spirit, and great in its effect. 
It would be worth to the nation a hundred years' 
purchase of peace and prosperity. And what of 
sacrifice would they make ? They only surrender to 
us what they gave us for a consideration long, long 
ago ; what they have not now asked for, struggled or 
cared for; what has been thrust upon them, not less 
to their astonishment than to ours. 

But it is said we cannot restore it ; that though we 
elect every member of the lower House, the Senate 
is still against us. It is quite true that of the sena- 
tors who passed the Nebraska Bill a majority of the 
whole Senate will retain their seats in spite of the 
elections of this and the next year. But if at these 
elections their several constituencies shall clearly 
express their will against Nebraska, will these sena- 
tors disregard their will? Will they neither obey 
nor make room for those who will? 

But even if we fail to technically restore the com- 
promise, it is still a great point to carry a popular 



;^. 



Abraham Lincoln 221 

vote in favor of the restoration. The moral weight 
of such a vote cannot be estimated too highly. The 
authors of Nebraska are not at all satisfied with the 
destruction of the compromise — an indorsement of 
this principle they proclaim to be the great object. 
With them, Nebraska alone is a small matter — to 
establish a principle for future use is what they par- 
ticularly desire. 

The future use is to be the planting of slavery 
wherever in the wide world local and unorganized 
opposition cannot prevent it. Now, if you wish to 
give them this indorsement, if you wish to establish 
this principle, do so. I shall regret it, but it is your 
right. On the contrary, if you are opposed to the 
principle, — intend to give it no such indorsement, — 
let no wheedling, no sophistry, divert you from 
throwing a direct vote against it. 

Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the re- 
peal of the Missouri Compromise, nevertheless hesi- 
tate to go for its restoration, lest they be thrown in 
company with the abolitionists. Will they allow 
me, as an old Whig, to tell them, good-humoredly, 
that I think this is very silly ? Stand with anybody 
that stands right. Stand with him while he is right, 
and part with him when he goes wrong. Stand with 
the abolitionist in restoring the Missouri Com- 
promise, and stand against him when he attempts to 
repeal the Fugitive Slave law. In the latter case you 
stand with the Southern disunionist. What of that ? 
You are still right. In both cases you are right. 
In both cases you oppose the dangerous extremes. 
In both you stand on middle ground, and hold the 



222 The Writings of 

ship level and steady. In both you are national, 
and nothing less than national. This is the good old 
Whig ground. To desert such ground because of 
any company is to be less than a Whig — less than a 
man — ^less than an American. 

I particularly object to the new position which the 
avowed principle of this Nebraska law gives to 
slavery in the body politic. I object to it because it 
assumes that there can be moral right in the enslav- 
ing of one man by another. I object to it as a 
dangerous dalliance for a free people — a sad evidence 
that, feeling prosperity, we forget right; that 
liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to revere. I 
object to it because the fathers of the republic 
eschewed and rejected it. The argument of " neces- 
sity" was the only argument they ever admitted in 
favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only, as it 
carried them did they ever go. They found the 
institution existing among us, which they could not 
help, and they cast blame upon the British king for 
having permitted its introduction. Before the Con- 
stitution they prohibited its introduction into the 
Northwestern Territory, the only country we owned 
then free from it. At the framing and adoption of 
the Constitution, they forbore to so much as mention 
the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instru- 
ment. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, 
the slave is spoken of as a "person held to service or 
labor." In that prohibiting the abolition of the 
African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is 
spoken of as "the migration or importation of such 
persons as any of the States now existing shall think 



Abraham Lincoln 223 

proper to admit," etc. These are the only provi- 
sions alluding to slavery. Thus the thing is hid 
away in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man 
hides away a wen or cancer which he dares not cut 
out at once, lest he bleed to death, — ^with the promise, 
nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at a certain 
time. Less than this our fathers could not do, and 
more they would not do. Necessity drove them so 
far, and farther they would not go. But this is not 
all. The earliest Congress under the Constitution 
took the same view of slavery. They hedged and 
hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity. 

In 1 794 they prohibited an outgoing slave trade — 
that is, the taking of slaves from the United States to 
sell. In 1798 they prohibited the bringing of slaves 
from Africa into the Mississippi Territory, this 
Territory then comprising what are now the States 
of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years 
before they had the authority to do the same thing as 
to the States existing at the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion. In 1800 they prohibited American citizens 
from trading in slaves between foreign countries, as, 
for instance, from Africa to Brazil. In 1803 they 
passed a law in aid of one or two slave-State laws in 
restraint of the internal slave trade. In 1807, in 
apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a 
year in advance, — to take effect the first day of 1808, 
the very first day the Constitution would permit, — 
prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecun- 
iary and corporal penalties. In 1820, finding these 
provisions ineffectual, they declared the slave trade 
piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of 



224 The Writino^s of 



death. While all this was passing in the General 
Government, five or six of the original slave States 
had adopted systems of gradual emancipation, by 
which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct 
within their limits. Thus we see that the plain, 
unmistakable spirit of that age toward slavery was 
hostility to the principle and toleration only by 
necessity. 

But now it is to be transformed into a "sacred 
right." Nebraska brings it forth, places it on the 
highroad to extension and perpetuity, and with a 
pat on its back says to it, "Go, and God speed you." 
Henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of the nation — 
the very figure-head of the ship of state. Little by 
little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we 
have been giving up the old for the new faith. Near 
eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men 
are created equal ; but now from that beginning we 
have run down to the other declaration, that for some 
men to enslave others is a "sacred right of self- 
government." These principles cannot stand to- 
gether. They are as opposite as God and Mammon ; 
and who ever holds to the one must despise the 
other. When Pettit, in connection with his support 
of the Nebraska Bill, called the Declaration of In- 
dependence "a self-evident lie," he only did what 
consistency and candor require all other Nebraska 
men to do. Of the forty-odd Nebraska senators 
who sat present and heard him, no one rebuked him. 
Nor am I apprised that any Nebraska newspaper, or 
any Nebraska orator, in the whole nation has ever 
yet rebuked him. If this had been said among 



Abraham Lincoln 225 

Marion's men, Southerners though they were, what 
would have become of the man who said it ? If this 
had been said to the men who captured Andre, the 
man who said it would probably have been hung 
sooner than Andre was. If it had been said in old 
Independence Hall seventy-eight years ago, the very 
doorkeeper would have throttled the man and thrust 
him into the street. Let no one be deceived. The 
spirit of seventy-six and the spirit of Nebraska are 
utter antagonisms; and the former is being rapidly 
displaced by the latter. 

Fellow-countrymen, Americans, South as well as 
North, shall we make no effort to arrest this? Al- 
ready the liberal party throughout the world express 
the apprehension that "the one retrograde institu- 
tion in America is undermining the principles of 
progress, and fatally violating the noblest political 
system the world ever saw." This is not the taunt 
of enemies, but the warning of friends. Is it quite 
safe to disregard it — to despise it? Is there no 
danger to liberty itself in discarding the earliest 
practice and first precept of our ancient faith? In 
our greedy chase to make profit of the negro, let us 
beware lest we ' ' cancel and tear in pieces ' ' even the 
white man's charter of freedom. 

Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the 
dust. Let us repurify it. Let us turn and wash it 
white in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolu- 
tion. Let us turn slavery from its claims of "moral 
right" back upon its existing legal rights and its 
arguments of "necessity." Let us return it to the 
position our fathers gave it, and there let it rest in 

VOL. II. IS. 



226 The Writinpfs of 



t>- 



peace. Let us readopt the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, and with it the practices and pohcy which 
harmonize with it. Let North and South — ^let all 
Americans — ^let all lovers of liberty everywhere join 
in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall 
not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so 
saved it as to make and to keep it forever worthy of 
the saving. We shall have so saved it that the suc- 
ceeding millions of free happy people the world 
over shall rise up and call us blessed to the latest 
generations. 

At Springfield, twelve days ago, where I had 
spoken substantially as I have here. Judge Douglas 
replied to me; and as he is to reply to me here, I 
shall attempt to anticipate him by noticing some of 
the points he made there. He commenced by 
stating I had assumed all the way through that the 
principle of the Nebraska Bill would have the effect of 
extending slavery. He denied that this was intended 
or that this effect would follow. 

I will not reopen the argument upon this point. 
That such was the intention the world believed at the 
start, and will continue to believe. This was the 
countenance of the thing, and both friends and 
enemies instantly recognized it as such. That coun- 
tenance cannot now be changed by argument. You 
can as easily argue the color out of the negro's skin. 
Like the "bloody hand," you may wash it and wash 
it, the red witness of guilt still sticks and stares 
horribly at you. 

Next he says that Congressional intervention never 
prevented slavery anywhere ; that it did not prevent 



Abraham Lincoln 227 

it in the Northwestern Territory, nor in IlHnois; 
that, in fact, Ilhnois came into the Union as a slave 
State; that the principle of the Nebraska Bill ex- 
pelled it from Illinois, from several old States, from 
everywhere. 

Now this is mere quibbling all the way through. 
If the Ordinance of '87 did not keep slavery out of the 
Northwest Territory, how happens it that the north- 
west shore of the Ohio River is entirely free from it, 
while the southeast shore, less than a mile distant, 
along nearly the whole length of the river, is entirely 
covered with it ? 

If that ordinance did not keep it out of Illinois, 
what was it that made the difference between Illinois 
and Missouri? They lie side by side, the Mississippi 
River only dividing them, while their early settle- 
ments were within the same latitude. Between 
1 810 and 1820 the number of slaves in Missouri in- 
creased 721 1, while in Illinois in the same ten years 
they decreased 51. This appears by the census 
returns. During nearly all of that ten years both 
were Territories, not States. During this time the 
ordinance forbade slavery to go into Illinois, and 
nothing forbade it to go into Missouri. It did go 
into Missouri, and did not go into lUinois. That is 
the fact. Can any one doubt as to the reason of it? 
But he says Illinois came into the Union as a slave 
State. Silence, perhaps, would be the best answer 
to this flat contradiction of the known history of the 
country. What are the facts upon which this bold 
assertion is based? When we first acquired the 
country, as far back as 1787, there were some slaves 



228 The Writings of 

within it held by the French inhabitants of Kas- 
kaskia. The territorial legislation admitted a few- 
negroes from the slave States as indentured servants. 
One year after the adoption of the first State con- 
stitution, the whole number of them was — ^what do 
you think? Just one hundred and seventeen, while 
the aggregate free population was 55,094, — about 
four hundred and seventy to one. Upon this state 
of facts the people framed their constitution pro- 
hibiting the further introduction of slavery, with a 
sort of guaranty to the owners of the few indentured 
servants, giving freedom to their children to be bom 
thereafter, and making no mention whatever of any 
supposed slave for life. Out of this small matter the 
Judge manufactures his argument that Illinois came 
into the Union as a slave State. Let the facts be the 
answer to the argument. 

The principles of the Nebraska Bill, he says, ex- 
pelled slavery from Illinois. The principle of that 
bill first planted it here — that is, it first came because 
there was no law to prevent it, first came before we 
owned the country; and finding it here, and having 
the Ordinance of '87 to prevent its increasing, our 
people struggled along, and finally got rid of it as 
best they could. 

But the principle of the Nebraska Bill abolished 
slavery in several of the old States. Well, it is true 
that several of the old States, in the last quarter of 
the last century, did adopt systems of gradual 
emancipation by which the institution has finally 
become extinct within their limits; but it may or 
may not be true that the principle of the Nebraska 



Abraham Lincoln 229 

Bill was the cause that led to the adoption of 
these measures. It is now more than fifty years 
since the last of these States adopted its system of 
emancipation. 

If the Nebraska Bill is the real author of the 
benevolent works, it is rather deplorable that it has 
for so long a time ceased working altogether. Is 
there not some reason to suspect that it was the 
principle of the Revolution, and not the principle of 
the Nebraska Bill, that led to emancipation in these 
old States? Leave it to the people of these old 
emancipating States, and I am quite certain they 
will decide that neither that nor any other good thing 
ever did or ever will come of the Nebraska Bill. 

In the course of my main argument, Judge Douglas 
interrupted me to say that the principle of the 
Nebraska Bill was very old ; that it originated when 
God made man, and placed good and evil before him, 
allowing him to choose for himself, being responsi- 
ble for the choice he should make. At the time I 
thought this was merely playful, and I answered it 
accordingly. But in his reply to me he renewed it as 
a serious argument. In seriousness, then, the facts 
of this proposition are not true as stated. God did 
not place good and evil before man, telling him to 
make his choice. On the contrary, he did tell him 
there was one tree of the fruit of which he should not 
eat, upon pain of certain death. I should scarcely 
wish so strong a prohibition against slavery in 
Nebraska. 

But this argument strikes me as not a little 
remarkable in another particular — in its strong 



230 The Writings of 

resemblance to the old argximentforthe "divine right 
of kings." By the latter, the king is to do just as he 
pleases with his white subjects, being responsible to 
God alone. By the former, the white man is to do 
just as he pleases with his black slaves, being 
responsible to God alone. The two things are pre- 
cisely alike, and it is but natural that they should 
find similar arguments to sustain them. 

I had argued that the application of the principle 
of self-government, as contended for, would require 
the revival of the African slave trade; that no 
argument could be made in favor of a man's right to 
take slaves to Nebraska which could not be equally 
well made in favor of his right to bring them from 
the coast of Africa. The Judge replied that the Con- 
stitution requires the suppression of the foreign 
slave trade, but does not require the prohibition of 
slavery in the Territories. That is a mistake in 
point of fact. The Constitution does not require the 
action of Congress in either case, and it does authorize 
it in both. And so there is still no difference between 
the cases. 

In regard to what I have said of the advantage the 
slave States have over the free in the matter of 
representation, the Judge replied that we in the free 
States count five free negroes as five white people, 
while in the slave States they count five slaves as 
three whites only; and that the advantage, at last, 
was on the side of the free States. 

Now, in the slave States they count free negroes 
just as we do ; and it so happens that, besides their 
slaves, they have as many free negroes as we have, 



Abraham Lincoln 



2^1 



and thirty thousand over. Thus, their free negroes 
more than balance ours; and their advantage over 
us, in consequence of their slaves, still remains as I 
stated it. 

In reply to my argument that the compromise 
measures of 1850 were a system of equivalents, and 
that the provisions of no one of them could fairly be 
carried to other subjects without its corresponding 
equivalent being carried with it, the Judge denied 
outright that these measures had any connection 
with or dependence upon each other. This is mere 
desperation. If they had no connection, why are 
they always spoken of in connection ? Why has he so 
spoken of them a thousand times? Why has he 
constantly called them a series of measures? Why 
does everybody call them a compromise ? Why was 
California kept out of the Union six or seven months, 
if it was not because of its connection with the other 
measures? Webster's leading definition of the verb 
"to compromise" is "to adjust and settle a differ- 
ence, by mutual agreement, with concessions of 
claims by the parties." This conveys precisely the 
popular understanding of the word "compromise." 

We knew, before the Judge told us, that these 
measures passed separately, and in distinct bills, 
and that no two of them were passed by the votes of 
precisely the same members. But we also know, and 
so does he know, that no one of them could have 
passed both branches of Congress but for the under- 
standing that the others were to pass also. Upon this 
understanding, each got votes which it could have 
got in no other way. It is this fact which gives to 



232 The Writings of 

the measures their true character; and it is the 
universal knowledge of this fact that has given them 
the name of " compromises," so expressive of that 
true character. 

I had asked: '*If, in carrying the Utah and New- 
Mexico laws to Nebraska, you could clear away other 
objection, how could you leave Nebraska 'perfectly 
free' to introduce slavery before she forms a con- 
stitution, during her territorial government, while the 
Utah and New Mexico laws only authorize it when 
they form constitutions and are admitted into the 
Union?" To this Judge Douglas answered that the 
Utah and New Mexico laws also authorized it before ; 
and to prove this he read from one of their laws, as 
follows: "That the legislative power of said Territory 
shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, 
consistent with the Constitution of the United States 
and the provisions of this act." 

Now it is perceived from the reading of this that 
there is nothing express upon the subject, but that 
the authority is sought to be implied merely for the 
general provision of "all rightful subjects of legisla- 
tion." In reply to this I insist, as a legal rule of con- 
struction, as well as the plain, popular view of the 
matter, that the express provision for Utah and New 
Mexico coming in with slavery, if they choose, when 
they shall form constitutions, is an exclusion of all 
implied authority on the same subject ; that Congress 
having the subject distinctly in their minds when 
they made the express provision, they therein ex- 
pressed their whole meaning on that subject. 

The Judge rather insinuated that I had foimd it 



Abraham Lincoln 233 

convenient to forget the Washington territorial law 
passed in 1853. This was a division of Oregon, 
organizing the northern part as the Territory of 
Washington. He asserted that by this act the 
Ordinance of '87, theretofore existing in Oregon, was 
repealed; that nearly all the members of Congress 
voted for it, beginning in the House of Representa- 
tives with Charles Allen of Massachusetts, and end- 
ing with Richard Yates of Illinois ; and that he could 
not understand how those who now opposed the 
Nebraska Bill so voted there, unless it was because 
it was then too soon after both the great political 
parties had ratified the compromises of 1850, and 
the ratification therefore was too fresh to be then 
repudiated. 

Now I had seen the Washington act before, and I 
have carefully examined it since; and I aver that 
there is no repeal of the Ordinance of '87, or of any 
prohibition of slavery, in it. In express terms, there 
is absolutely nothing in the whole law upon the sub- 
ject — in fact, nothing to lead a reader to think of the 
subject. To my judgment it is equally free from 
everything from which repeal can be legally implied ; 
but, however this may be, are men now to be en- 
trapped by a legal implication, extracted from covert 
language, introduced perhaps for the very purpose 
of entrapping them? I sincerely wish every man 
could read this law quite through, carefully watching 
every sentence and every line for a repeal of the 
Ordinance of '87, or anything equivalent to it. 

Another point on the Washington act: If it was 
intended to be modelled after the Utah and New 



234 The Writings of 

Mexico acts, as Judge Douglas insists, why was it 
not inserted in it, as in them, that Washington was 
to come in with or without slavery as she may 
choose at the adoption of her constitution? It has 
no such provision in it; and I defy the ingenuity of 
man to give a reason for the omission, other than that 
it was not intended to follow the Utah and New 
Mexico laws in regard to the question of slavery. 

The Washington act not only differs vitally from 
the Utah and New Mexico acts, but the Nebraska act 
differs vitally from both. By the latter act the peo- 
ple are left "perfectly free" to regulate their own 
domestic concerns, etc.; but in all the former, all 
their laws are to be submitted to Congress, and if 
disapproved are to be null. The Washington act 
goes even further; it absolutely prohibits the 
territorial Legislatiire, by very strong and guarded 
language, from establishing banks or borrowing 
money on the faith of the Territory. Is this the 
sacred right of self-government we hear vaunted so 
much? No, sir; the Nebraska Bill finds no model in 
the acts of '50 or the Washington act. It finds no 
model in any law from Adam till to-day. As Phillips 
says of Napoleon, the Nebraska act is grand, gloomy 
and peculiar, wrapped in the solitude of its own 
originality, without a model and without a shadow 
upon the earth. 

In the course of his reply Senator Douglas re- 
marked in substance that he had always considered 
this government was made for the white people and 
not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, 
I think so too. But in this remark of the Judge there 



Abraham Lincoln 235 

is a significance which I think is the key to the great 
mistake (if there is any such mistake) which he has 
made in this Nebraska measure. It shows that the 
Judge has no very vivid impression that the negro is 
human, and consequently has no idea that there can 
be any moral question in legislating about him. In 
his view the question of whether a new coimtry shall 
be slave or free is a matter of as utter indifference 
as it is whether his neighbor shall plant his farm 
with tobacco or stock it with horned cattle. Now, 
whether this view is right or wrong, it is very certain 
that the great mass of mankind take a totally dif- 
ferent view. They consider slavery a great moral 
wrong, and their feeling against it is not evanescent, 
but eternal. It lies at the very foundation of their 
sense of justice, and it cannot be trifled with. It is a 
great and durable element of popular action, and I 
think no statesman can safely disregard it. 

Our Senator also objects that those who oppose him 
in this matter do not entirely agree with one another. 
He reminds me that in my firm adherence to the con- 
stitutional rights of the slave States I differ widely 
from others who are co-operating with me in opposing 
the Nebraska Bill, and he says it is not quite fair to 
oppose him in this variety of ways. He should 
remember that he took us by surprise — astounded 
us by this measure. We were thunderstruck and 
stunned, and we reeled and fell in utter confusion. 
But we rose, each fighting, grasping whatever he 
could first reach — a scythe, a pitchfork, a chopping- 
ax, or a butcher's cleaver. We struck in the direc- 
tion of the sound, and we were rapidly closing in 



236 The Writings of 



upon him. He must not think to divert us from our 
purpose by showing us that our drill, our dress, and 
our weapons are not entirely perfect and uniform. 
When the storm shall be past he shall find us still 
Americans, no less devoted to the continued union 
and prosperity of the country than heretofore. 

Finally, the Judge invokes against me the memory 
of Clay and Webster, They were great men, and 
men of great deeds. But where have I assailed 
them? For what is it that their lifelong enemy 
shall now make profit by asstiming to defend them 
against me, their lifelong friend? I go against the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise ; did they ever go 
for it? They went for the Compromise of 1850; did 
I ever go against them ? They were greatly devoted 
to the Union; to the small measure of my ability 
was I ever less so? Clay and Webster were dead 
before this question arose; by what authority shall 
our Senator say they would espouse his side of it if 
alive ? Mr. Clay was the leading spirit in making the 
Missouri Compromise ; is it very credible that if now 
alive he would take the lead in the breaking of it? 
The truth is that some support from Whigs is now 
a necessity with the Judge, and for this it is that the 
names of Clay and Webster are invoked. His old 
friends have deserted him in such numbers as to 
leave too few to live by. He came to his own, and 
his own received him not; andlo! he turns unto the 
Gentiles. 

A word now as to the Judge's desperate assumption 
that the compromises of 1850 had no connection with 
one another; that Illinois came into the Union as a 



Abraham Lincoln 237 

slave State, and some other similar ones. This is no 
other than a bold denial of the history of the coun- 
try. If we do not know that the compromises of 
1850 were dependent on each other; if we do not 
know that Illinois came into the Union as a free 
State, — we do not know anything. If we do not 
know these things, we do not know that we ever had 
a Revolutionary War or such a chief as Washington. 
To deny these things is to deny our national axioms, 
— or dogmas, at least, — and it puts an end to all 
argument. If a man will stand up and assert, and 
repeat and reassert, that two and two do not make 
four, I know nothing in the power of argument that 
can stop him. I think I can answer the Judge so long 
as he sticks to the premises ; but when he flies from 
them, I cannot work any argument into the con- 
sistency of a mental gag and actually close his 
mouth with it. In such a case I can only commend 
him to the seventy thousand answers just in from 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. 



TO CHARLES HOYT. 

Clinton, De Witt Co., Nov. io, 1854. 

Dear Sir: — ^You used to express a good deal of 
partiality for me, and if you are still so, now is the 
time. Some friends here are really for me for the 
U. S. Senate, and I should be very grateful if you 
could make a mark for me among your members. 
Please write me at all events, giving me the names, 



238 The Writings of 

post-offices, and ''political position'' of members 
round about you. Direct to Springfield. 
Let this be confidential. 

Yours truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO J. GILLESPIE. 

Springfield, Dec. i, 1854. 

My dear Sir: — I have really got it into my head 
to try to be United States Senator, and, if I could 
have your support, my chances would be reasonably 
good. But I know, and acknowledge, that you have 
as just claims to the place as I have ; and therefore 
I cannot ask you to 3deld to me, if you are think- 
ing of becoming a candidate, yourself. If, however, 
you are not, then I should like to be remembered 
affectionately by you ; and also to have you make a 
mark for me with the Anti-Nebraska members down 
your way. 

If you know, and have no objection to tell, let me 
know whether Trumbull intends to make a push. 
If he does, I suppose the two men in St. Clair, and 
one, or both, in Madison, will be for him. We have 
the Legislature, clearly enough, on joint ballot, but 
the Senate is very close, and Cullom told me to-day 
that the Nebraska men will stave off the election, if 
they can. Even if we get into joint vote, we shall 
have difficulty to unite our forces. Please write me, 
and let this be confidential. 

Yoirr friend, as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 239 

TO JUSTICE MCLEAN. 

Springfield, III., December 6, 1854. 

Sir: — I understand it is in contemplation to dis- 
place the present clerk and appoint a new one for the 
Circuit and District Courts of Illinois. I am very 
friendly to the present incumbent, and, both for his 
own sake and that of his family, I wish him to be 
retained so long as it is possible for the court to do so. 

In the contingency of his removal, however, I have 
recommended William Butler as his successor, and I 
do not wish what I write now to be taken as any 
abatement of that recommendation. 

William J. Black is also an applicant for the ap- 
pointment, and I write this at the solicitation of his 
friends to say that he is every way worthy of the 
office, and that I doubt not the conferring it upon 
him will give great satisfaction. 

Your ob't servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO E. B. WASHBURNE. 

Springfield, February 9, 1855. 

My dear Sir: . . . 

I began with 44 votes, Shields 41, and Trumbull 5, 
— ^yet Trumbull was elected. In fact 47 different 
members voted for me, — getting three new ones on 
the second ballot, and losing four old ones. How 
came my 47 to yield to Trumbull's 5? It was 
Governor Matteson's work. He has been secretly a 
candidate ever since (before, even) the fall election. 



240 The Writings of 

All the members roimd about the canal were Anti- 
Nebraska, but were nevertheless nearly all Demo- 
crats and old personal friends of his. His plan was 
to privately impress them with the belief that he was 
as good Anti-Nebraska as any one else — at least 
could be secured to be so by instructions, which 
could be easily passed. 

The Nebraska men, of course, were not for 
Matteson ; but when they found they could elect no 
avowed Nebraska man, they tardily determined to 
let him get whomever of our men he could, by what- 
ever means he could, and ask him no questions. 
. . . The Nebraska men were very confident of 
the election of Matteson, though denying that he 
was a candidate, and we very much believing also 
that they would elect him. But they wanted first 
to make a show of good faith to Shields by voting 
for him a few times, and our secret Matteson men 
also wanted to make a show of good faith by voting 
with us a few times. So we led off. On the seventh 
ballot, I think, the signal was given to the Nebraska 
men to turn to Matteson, which they acted on to a 
man, with one exception. . . . Next ballot the 
remaining Nebraska man and one pretended Anti 
went over to him, giving him 46. The next still 
another, giving him 47, wanting only three of an 
election. In the meantime our friends, with a view 
of detaining our expected bolters, had been turning 
from me to Trumbull till he had risen to 3 5 and I had 
been reduced to 15. These would never desert me 
except by my direction ; but I became satisfied that 
if we could prevent Matteson 's election one or two 



Abraham Lincoln 241 

ballots more, we could not possibly do so a single 
ballot after my friends should begin to return to me 
from Trumbull. So I determined to strike at once, 
and accordingly advised my remaining friends to go 
for him, which they did and elected him on the tenth 
ballot. 

Such is the way the thing was done. I think 3'ou 
would have done the same under the circumstances. 
. . . I could have headed off every combination 
and been elected, had it not been for Matteson's 
double game — and his defeat now gives me more 
pleasure than my own gives me pain. On the whole, 
it is perhaps as well for our general cause that Trum- 
bull is elected. The Nebraska men confess that they 
hate it worse than anything that could have hap- 
pened. It is a great consolation to see them worse 
whipped than I am. 

Yours forever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO SANFORD, PORTER, AND STRIKER, NEW YORK. 

Springfield, March lo, 1855. 

Gentlemen : — Yours of the 5th is received, as also 
was that of 15th Dec. last, inclosing bond of Clift to 
Pray. When I received the bond I was dabbling 
in politics, and of course neglecting business. Hav- 
ing since been beaten out I have gone to work again. 

As I do not practise in Rushville I to-day open a 
correspondence with Henry E. Dummer, Esq., of 
Beardstown, 111., with the view of getting the job 

VOL. 11.— 16. 



242 The Writings of 

into his hands. He is a good man if he will under- 
take it. Write me whether I shall do this or return 
the bond to you. 

Yours respectfully, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

Springfield, August 24, 1855. 

Dear Speed : — ^You know what a poor correspond- 
ent I am. Ever since I received your very agreeable 
letter of the 2 2d of May I have been intending to 
write you an answer to it. You suggest that in 
political action, now, you and I would differ. I sup- 
pose we would; not quite as much, however, as you 
may think. You know I dislike slavery, and you 
fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there 
is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner 
than yield your legal right to the slave, especially at 
the bidding of those who are not themselves inter- 
ested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am 
not aware that any one is bidding you yield that 
right ; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter 
entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights 
and my obligations tmder the Constitution in regard 
to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor 
creatures hunted down and caught and carried back 
to their stripes and unrequited toil; but I bite my 
lips and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together 
a tedious low-water trip on a steamboat from Louis- 
ville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, 
that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there 



Abraham Lincoln 243 

were on board ten or a dozen slaves shackled together 
with irons. That sight was a continued torment to 
me, and I see something like it every time I touch 
the Ohio or any other slave border. It is not fair 
for you to assvime that I have no interest in a thing 
which has, and continually exercises, the power of 
making me miserable. You ought rather to appre- 
ciate how much the great body of the Northern 
people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain 
their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. I 
do oppose the extension of slavery because my judg- 
ment and feeling so prompt me, and I am under no 
obligations to the contrary. If for this you and I 
must differ, differ we must. You say, if you were 
President, you would send an army and hang the 
leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas 
elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave 
State she must be admitted or the Union must be 
dissolved. But how if she votes herself a slave State 
unfairly, that is, by the very means for which you 
say you would hang men? Must she still be ad- 
mitted, or the Union dissolved? That will be the 
phase of the question when it first becomes a prac- 
tical one. In your assumption that there may be 
a fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I 
plainly see you and I would differ about the Ne- 
braska law. I look upon that enactment not as a 
law, but as a violence from the beginning. It was 
conceived in violence, is maintained in violence, and 
is being executed in violence. I say it was con- 
ceived in violence, because the destruction of the 
Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was 



244 The Writings of 

nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence 
because it could not have passed at all but for the 
votes of many members in violence of the known 
will of their constituents. It is maintained in 
violence, because the elections since clearly demand 
its repeal; and the demand is openly disregarded. 

You say men ought to be hung for the way they 
are executing the law; I say the way it is being 
executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. 
It is being executed in the precise way which was 
intended from the first, else why does no Nebraska 
man express astonishment or condemnation? Poor 
Reeder is the only public man who has been silly 
enough to believe that anything like fairness was 
ever intended, and he has been bravely undeceived. 

That Kansas will form a slave constitution, and 
with it will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take 
to be already a settled question, and so settled by the 
very means you so pointedly condemn. By every 
principle of law ever held by any court North or 
South, every negro taken to Kansas is free ; yet, in 
utter disregard of this, — in the spirit of violence 
merely, — that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a 
law to hang an}^ man who shall venture to inform a 
negro of his legal rights. This is the subject and real 
object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang 
upon the gallows of their own building, I shall not be 
among the mourners for their fate. In my humble 
sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the 
Missouri Compromise so long as Kansas remains a 
Territory, and when, by all these foul means, it 
seeks to come into the Union as a slave State, I shall 



Abraham Lincoln 245 

oppose it. I am very loath in any case to withhold 
my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired or 
located in good faith ; but I do not admit that good 
faith in taking a negro to Kansas to be held in 
slavery is a probability with any man. Any man 
who has sense enough to be the controller of his own 
property has too much sense to misunderstand the 
outrageous character of the whole Nebraska business. 
But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of 
Kansas I shall have some company, but we may be 
beaten. If we are, I shall not on that account 
attempt to dissolve the Union. I think it probable, 
however, we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit 
among yourselves, you can, directly and indirectly, 
bribe enough of our men to carry the day, as you 
could on the open proposition to establish a mon- 
archy. Get hold of some man in the North whose 
position and ability is such that he can make the 
support of your measure, whatever it may be, a 
Democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. 
Apropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Doug- 
las introduced the Nebraska Bill in January. In 
February afterward there was a called session of the 
Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members 
composing the two branches of that body, about 
seventy were Democrats. These latter held a caucus 
in which the Nebraska Bill was talked of, if not 
formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that 
just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. 
In a day or two Douglas's orders came on to have 
resolutions passed approving the bill; and they 
Were passed by large majorities! ! ! The truth of 



246 The Writings of 

this is vouched for by a bolting Democratic member. 
The masses, too, Democratic as well as Whig, were 
even nearer imanimous against it; but, as soon as 
the party necessity of supporting it became apparent, 
the way the Democrats began to see the wisdom and 
justice of it was perfectly astonishing. ' 

You say that if Kansas fairly votes herself a free 
State, as a Christian you will rejoice at it. All 
decent slaveholders talk that way, and I do not 
doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. 
Although in a private letter or conversation you 
will express your preference that Kansas shall be 
free, you w^ould vote for no man for Congress who 
would say the same thing publicly. No such man 
could be elected from any district in a slave State. 
You think Stringfellow and company ought to be 
hung; and yet at the next Presidential election you 
will vote for the exact type and representative of 
Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders 
are a small, odious, and detested class among you; 
and yet in politics they dictate the course of all of 
you, and are as completely 3^our masters as you are 
the master of your own negroes. You inquire where 
I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I 
am a Whig; but others say there are no Whigs, and 
that I am an Abolitionist. When I was at Wash- 
ington, I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as 
forty times ; and I never heard of any one attempting 
to im-Whig me for that. I now do no more than op- 
pose the extension of slavery. I am not a Know- 
Nothing; that is certain. How could I be? How 
can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes be 



Abraham Lincoln 247 

in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our 
progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty 
rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that *'all 
men are created equal." We now practically read 
it "all men are created equal, except negroes." 
When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ' ' all 
men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners 
and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall 
prefer emigrating to some country where they make 
no pretence of loving liberty, — to Russia, for in- 
stance, where despotism can be taken pure, and with- 
out the base alloy of hypocrisy. 

Mary will probably pass a day or two in Louisville 
in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. 
On the leading subject of this letter I have more of 
her sympathy than I have of yours; and yet let me 
say I am 

Your friend forever, 

A. Lincoln. 



SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE THE FIRST REPUBLICAN 

STATE CONVENTION OF ILLINOIS, HELD AT 

BLOOMINGTON, ON MAY 29, 1856. 

From the Report by William C. Whitney. 

(Mr. Whitney's notes were made at the time, but 
not written out until 1896. He does not claim that 
the speech, as here reported, is literally correct — 
only that he has followed the argument, and that in 
many cases the sentences are as Mr. Lincoln spoke 
them.) 



248 The Writings of 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I was over at 
[Cries of "Platform!" "Take the platform!"]— I 
say, that while I was at Danville Court, some of our 
friends of Anti-Nebraska got together in Springfield 
and elected me as one delegate to represent old 
Sangamon with them in this convention, and I am 
here certainly as a sympathizer in this movement and 
by virtue of that meeting and selection. But we 
can hardly be called delegates strictly, inasmuch as, 
properly speaking, we represent nobody but our- 
selves. I think it altogether fair to say that we 
have no Anti-Nebraska part}^ in Sangamon, although 
there is a good deal of Anti-Nebraska feeling there ; 
but I say for myself, and I think I may speak also for 
my colleagues, that we who are here fully approve of 
the platform and of all that has been done [A voice, 
"Yes!"], and even if we are not regularly dele- 
gates, it will be right for me to answer your call to 
speak. I suppose we truly stand for the public 
sentiment of Sangamon on the great question of 
the repeal, although we do not yet represent many 
numbers who have taken a distinct position on the 
question. 

We are in a trying time — it ranges above mere 
party — and this movement to call a halt and turn 
our steps backward needs all the help and good 
counsels it can get ; for unless popular opinion makes 
itself very strongly felt, and a change is made in our 
present course, hlood will flow on account of Nebraska, 
and brother's hands will be raised against brother! [The 
last sentence was uttered in such an earnest, im- 
pressive, if not, indeed, tragic, manner, as to make 



Abraham Lincoln 249 

a cold chill creep over me. Others gave a similar 
experience.] 

I have listened with great interest to the earnest 
appeal made to Illinois men by the gentleman from 
Lawrence [James S. Emery] who has just addressed 
us so eloquently and forcibly. I was deeply moved 
by his statement of the wrongs done to free-State 
men out there. I think it just to say that all true 
men North should sympathize with them, and ought 
to be willing to do any possible and needful thing 
to right their wrongs. But we must not promise 
what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform 
what we cannot ; we must be calm and moderate, and 
consider the whole difficulty, and determine what is 
possible and just. We must not be led by excite- 
ment and passion to do that which our sober judg- 
ments would not approve in our cooler moments. 
We have higher aims; we will have more serious 
business than to dally with temporary measures. 

We are here to stand firmly for a principle — to 
stand firmly for a right. We know that great 
political and moral wrongs are done, and outrages 
committed, and we denounce those wrongs and out- 
rages, although we cannot, at present, do much 
more. But we desire to reach out beyond those 
personal outrages and establish a rule that will apply 
to all, and so prevent any future outrages. 

We have seen to-day that every shade of popular 
opinion is represented here, with Freedom, or rather 
Free Soil, as the basis. We have come together as in 
some sort representatives of popular opinion against 
the extension of slavery into territory now free in fact 



250 The Writinors of 



as well as by law, and the pledged word of the states- 
men of the nation who are now no more. We come — 
we are here assembled together — to protest as well as 
we can against a great wrong, and to take measures, 
as well as we now can, to make that wrong right ; to 
place the nation, as far as it may be possible now, 
as it was before the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise; and the plain way to do this is to restore 
the Compromise, and to demand and determine that 
Kansas shall be free! [Immense applause.] While 
we affirm, and reaffirm, if necessar}^ our devotion to 
the principles of the Declaration of Independence, 
let our practical work here be limited to the above. 
We know that there is not a perfect agreement of 
sentiment here on the public questions which might 
be rightfully considered in this convention, and that 
the indignation which we all must feel cannot be 
helped ; but all of us must give up something for the 
good of the cause. There is one desire which is 
uppermost in the mind, one wish common to us all, 
to which no dissent will be made ; and I counsel you 
earnestly to bury all resentment, to sink all personal 
feeling, make all things work to a common purpose 
in which we are united and agreed about, and which 
all present will agree is absolutely necessary — ^which 
must be done by any rightful mode if there be such : 
Slavery must be kept out of Kansas! [Applause.] 
The test — the pinch — is right there. If we lose Kan- 
sas to freedom, an example will be set which will 
prove fatal to freedom in the end. We, therefore, in 
the language of the Bible, must "lay the axe to the 
root of the tree." Temporizing will not do longer; 



Abraham Lincoln 251 

now is the time for decision — for firm, persistent, 
resolute action. [Applause.] 

The Nebraska Bill, or rather Nebraska law, is not 
one of wholesome legislation, but was and is an act 
of legislative usurpation, whose result, if not indeed 
intention, is to make slavery national; and unless 
headed off in some effective way, we are in a fair way 
to see this land of boasted freedom converted into 
a land of slavery in fact. [Sensation.] Just open 
your two eyes, and see if this be not so. I need do no 
more than state, to command universal approval, 
that almost the entire North, as well as a large fol- 
lowing in the border States, is radically opposed to 
the planting of slavery in free territory. Probably 
in a popular vote throughout the nation nine tenths 
of the voters in the free States, and at least one half 
in the border States, if they could express their senti- 
ments freely, would vote NO on such an issue; and 
it is safe to say that two thirds of the votes of the 
entire nation would be opposed to it. And yet, in 
spite of this overbalancing of sentiment in this free 
country, we are in a fair way to see Kansas present 
itself for admission as a slave State. Indeed, it is a 
felony, by the local law of Kansas, to deny that 
slavery exists there even now. By every principle 
of law, a negro in Kansas is free; yet the bogus 
Legislature makes it an infamous crime to tell him 
that he is free ! ^ 

' Statutes of Kansas, 1855, Chapter 151, Sec. 12: If any free per- 
son, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have 
not the right to hold slaves in this Territory, or shall introduce into 
this Territory, print, publish, write, circulate . . . any book, paper, 
magazine, pamphlet, or circular containing any denial of the right of 



252 



The Writings of 



The party lash and the fear of ridicule will over- 
awe justice and liberty; for it is a singular fact, but 
none the less a fact, and well known by the most 
common experience, that men will do things under 
the terror of the party lash that they w^ould not on 
any account or for any consideration do otherwise; 
while men who will march up to the mouth of 
a loaded cannon without shrinking will run from 
the terrible name of "Abolitionist," even when 
pronounced by a worthless creature whom they, 
with good reason, despise. For instance — to press 
this point a little — ^Judge Douglas introduced his 
Nebraska Bill in January; and we had an extra 
session of our Legislature in the succeeding February, 
in which were seventy-five Democrats; and at a 
party caucus, fully attended, there were just three 
votes, out of the w^hole seventy-five, for the measure. 
But in a few days orders came on from Washington, 
commanding them to approve the measure; the 
party lash was applied, and it was brought up again 
in caucus, and passed by a large majority. The 
masses were against it, but party necessity carried it; 
and it was passed through the lower house of Con- 
gress against the will of the people, for the same 
reason. Here is where the greatest danger lies — 
that, while we profess to be a government of law 
and reason, law will give way to violence on demand 

persons to hold slaves in this Territory, such person shall be deemed 
guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for a 
term of not less than two years. 

Sec. 13. No person who is conscientiously opposed to holding 
slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in this Territory, 
shall sit as a juror on the trial of any prosecution for any violation of 
any Sections of this Act. 



Abraham Lincoln 253 

of this awful and crushing power. Like the great 
Juggernaut — I think that is the name — the great 
idol, it crushes everything that comes in its way, and 
makes a — or, as I read once, in a blackletter law 
book, ' ' a slave is a human being who is legally not a 
person but a thing. ' ' And if the safeguards to liberty 
are broken down, as is now attempted, when they 
have made things of all the free negroes, how long, 
think you, before they will begin to make things of 
poor white men? [Applause.] Be not deceived. 
Revolutions do not go backward. The founder of 
the Democratic party declared that all men were 
created equal. His successor in the leadership has 
written the word "white" before men, making it 
read "all white men are created equal." Pray, will 
or may not the Know-Nothings, if they should get in 
power, add the word "Protestant," making it read 
"a// Protestant white men?'' 

Meanwhile the hapless negro is the fruitful subject 
of reprisals in other quarters. John Pettit, whom 
Tom Benton paid his respects to, you will recollect, 
calls the immortal Declaration "a self-evident lie"; 
while at the birthplace of freedom — in the shadow 
of Bunker Hill and of the "cradle of liberty," at the 
home of the Adamses and Warren and Otis — Choate, 
from our side of the house, dares to fritter away 
the birthday promise of libert}'' by proclaiming the 
Declaration to be " a string of glittering generalities ' ' ; 
and the Southern Whigs, working hand in hand 
with proslavery Democrats, are making Choate 's 
theories practical. Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, 
mindful of the moral element in slavery, solemnly 



254 The Writins^s of 



is- 



declared that he trembled for his country when he 
remembered that God is just ; while Judge Douglas, 
with an insignificant wave of the hand, "don't care 
whether slavery is voted up or voted down." Now, 
if slavery is right, or even negative, he has a right to 
treat it in this trifling manner. But if it is a moral 
and political wrong, as all Christendom considers it to 
be, how can he answer to God for this attempt to 
spread and fortify it ? [Applause.] 

But no man, and Judge Douglas no more than any 
other, can maintain a negative, or merely neutral, 
position on this question; and, accordingly, he 
avows that the Union was made by white men and 
for white men and their descendants. As matter of 
fact, the first branch of the proposition is historically 
true; the government was made by white men, and 
they were and are the superior race. This I admit. 
But the comer-stone of the government, so to speak, 
was the declaration that "all men are created equal," 
and all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. ' ' [Applause.] 

And not only so, but the framers of the Constitu- 
tion were particular to keep out of that instrument 
the word "slave," the reason being that slavery 
would ultimately come to an end, and they did not 
wish to have any reminder that in this free country 
human beings were ever prostituted to slavery. 
[Applause.] Nor is it any argument that we are 
superior and the negro inferior — that he has but one 
talent while we have ten. Let the negro possess the 
Httle he has in independence; if he has but one 
talent, he should be permitted to keep the little he 



Abraham Lincoln 255 

has. [Applause,] But slavery will endure no test of 
reason or logic; and yet its advocates, like Douglas, 
use a sort of bastard logic, or noisy assumption it 
might better be termed, like the above, in order to 
prepare the mind for the gradual, but none the less 
certain, encroachments of the Moloch of slavery 
upon the fair domain of freedom. But however 
much you may argue upon it, or smother it in soft 
phrase, slavery can only be maintained by force — ^by 
violence. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise 
was by violence. It was a violation of both law and 
the sacred obligations of honor, to overthrow and 
trample under foot a solemn compromise, obtained 
by the fearful loss to freedom of one of the fairest of 
our Western domains. Congress violated the will 
and confidence of its constituents in voting for the 
bill; and while public sentiment, as shown by the 
elections of 1854, demanded the restoration of this 
compromise, Congress violated its trust by refusing 
simply because it had the force of numbers to hold 
on to it. And murderous violence is being used now, 
in order to force slavery on to Kansas ; for it cannot 
be done in any other way. [Sensation.] 

The necessary result was to establish the rule of 
violence — force, instead of the rule of law and reason ; 
to perpetuate and spread slavery, and in time to 
make it general. We see it at both ends of the line. 
In Washington, on the very spot where the outrage 
was started, the fearless Sumner is beaten to insen- 
sibility, and is now slowly dying; while senators 
who claim to be gentlemen and Christians stood 
by, countenancing the act, and even applauding 



256 The Writings of 

it afterward in their places in the Senate. Even 
Douglas, our man, saw it all and was within helping 
distance, yet let the murderous blows fall unopposed. 
Then, at the other end of the line, at the very time 
Sumner was being murdered, Lawrence was being 
destroyed for the crime of freedom. It was the 
most prominent stronghold of liberty in Kansas, 
and must give way to the all-dominating power 
of slavery. Only two days ago. Judge Trumbull 
foimd it necessary to propose a bill in the Senate to 
prevent a general civil war and to restore peace in 
Kansas. 

We live in the midst of alarms; anxiety beclouds 
the future; we expect some new disaster with each 
newspaper we read. Are we in a healthful political 
state? Are not the tendencies plain? Do not the 
signs of the times point plainly the way in which we 
are going? [Sensation.] 

In the early days of the Constitution slavery was 
recognized, by South and North alike, as an evil, and 
the division of sentiment about it was not controlled 
by geographical lines or considerations of climate, 
but by moral and philanthropic views. Petitions 
for the abolition of slavery were presented to the 
very first Congress by Virginia and Massachusetts 
alike. To show the harmony which prevailed, I will 
state that a fugitive slave law was passed in 1793, 
with no dissenting voice in the Senate, and but seven 
dissenting votes in the House. It was, however, a 
wise law, moderate, and, under the Constitution, a 
just one. Twenty-five years later, a more stringent 
law was proposed and defeated; and thirty-five 



Abraham Lincoln 257 

years after that, the present law, drafted by Mason of 
Virginia, was passed by Northern votes. I am not, 
just now, complaining of this law, but I am trying to 
show how the current sets; for the proposed law of 
181 7 was far less offensive than the present one. In 
1774 the Continental Congress pledged itself, without 
a dissenting vote, to wholly discontinue the slave 
trade, and to neither purchase nor import any slave ; 
and less than three months before the passage of the 
Declaration of Independence, the same Congress 
which adopted that declaration unanimously re- 
solved "that no slave be imported into any of the 
thirteen United Colonies.'' [Great applause.] 

On the second day of July, 1776, the draft of a 
Declaration of Independence was reported to Con- 
gress by the committee, and in it the slave trade 
was characterized as "an execrable commerce," as 
"a piratical warfare," as the "opprobrium of infidel 
powers," and as "a cruel war against human nature. 
[Applause.] All agreed on this except South Caro- 
lina and Georgia, and in order to preserve harmony, 
and from the necessity of the case, these expressions 
were omitted. Indeed, abolition societies existed as 
far south as Virginia; and it is a well-known fact 
that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lee, Henry, 
Mason, and Pendleton were qualified abolitionists, 
and much more radical on that subject than we of 
the Whig and Democratic parties claim to be to-day. 
On March i, 1784, Virginia ceded to the confed- 
eration all its lands lying northwest of the Ohio 
River. Jefferson, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of 
Rhode Island, as a committee on that and territory 



258 The Writings of 

thereafter to be ceded, reported that no slavery should 
exist after the year 1800. Had this report been 
adopted, not only the Northwest, but Kentucky, 
Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi also would 
have been free; but it required the assent of nine 
States to ratify it. North Carolina was divided, and 
thus its vote was lost; and Delaware, Georgia, and 
New Jersey refused to vote. In point of fact, as it 
was, it was assented to by six States. Three years 
later, on a square vote to exclude slavery from the 
Northwest, only one vote, and that from New York, 
was against it. And yet, thirty-seven years later, 
five thousand citizens of Illinois, out of a voting mass 
of less than twelve thousand, deliberately, after a 
long and heated contest, voted to introduce slavery 
in Illinois; and, to-day, a large party in the free 
State of Illinois are willing to vote to fasten the 
shackles of slavery on the fair domain of Kansas, 
notwithstanding it received the dowry of freedom 
long before its birth as a political community. I 
repeat, therefore, the question: Is it not plain in 
what direction we are tending? [Sensation.] In 
the colonial time, Mason, Pendleton, and Jefferson 
were as hostile to slavery in Virginia as Otis, Ames, 
and the Adamses were in Massachusetts; and Vir- 
ginia made as earnest an effort to get rid of it as 
old Massachusetts did. But circumstances were 
against them and they failed ; but not that the good 
will of its leading men was lacking. Yet within less 
than fifty years Virginia changed its tune, and made 
negro-breeding for the cotton and sugar States one 
of its leading industries. [Laughter and applause.] 



Abraham Lincoln 259 

In the Constitutional Convention, George Mason 
of Virginia made a more violent abolition speech 
than my friends Love joy or Codding would desire to 
make here to-day — a speech which could not be 
safely repeated anywhere on Southern soil in this 
enlightened year. But, while there were some dif- 
ferences of opinion on this subject even then, dis- 
cussion was allowed; but as you see by the Kansas 
slave code, which, as you know, is the Missouri slave 
code, merely ferried across the river, it is a felony to 
even express an opinion hostile to that foul blot 
in the land of Washington and the Declaration of 
Independence. [Sensation.] 

In Kentucky — my State — in 1849, on a test vote, 
the mighty influence of Henry Clay and many other 
good men there could not get a symptom of expres- 
sion in favor of gradual emancipation on a plain issue 
of marching toward the light of civilization with 
Ohio and Illinois ; but the State of Boone and Hardin 
and Henry Clay, with a nigger under each arm, took 
the black trail toward the deadly swamps of bar- 
barism. Is there — can there be — any doubt about 
this thing ? And is there any doubt that we must all 
lay aside our prejudices and march, shoulder to 
shoulder, in the great army of Freedom ? [Applause.] 

Every Fourth of July our young orators all pro- 
claim this to be "the land of the free and the home 
of the brave!" Well, now, when you orators get 
that off next year, and, may be, this very year, how 
would you like some old grizzled farmer to get up in 
the grove and deny it? [Laughter.] How would 
you like that? But suppose Kansas comes in as a 



26o The Writines of 



en- 



slave State, and all the "border ruffians" have 
barbecues about it, and free-State men come trailing 
back to the dishonored North, like whipped dogs 
with their tails between their legs, it is — ain't it? — 
evident that this is no more the ' ' land of the free ' ' ; 
and if we let it go so, we won't dare to say "home 
of the brave" out loud. [Sensation and confusion.] 
Can any man doubt that, even in spite of the peo- 
ple's will, slavery will triumph through violence, 
unless that will be made manifest and enforced? 
Even Governor Reeder claimed at the outset that 
the contest in Kansas was to be fair, but he got his 
eyes open at last; and I believe that, as a result of 
this moral and physical violence, Kansas will soon 
apply for admission as a slave State. And yet we 
can't mistake that the people don't want it so, and 
that it is a land which is free both by natural and 
political law. No law, is free law! Such is the 
understanding of all Christendom. In the Somerset 
case, decided nearly a century ago, the great Lord 
Mansfield held that slavery was of such a nature that 
it must take its rise in positive (as distinguished from 
natural) law ; and that in no country or age could it 
be traced back to any other source. Will some one 
please tell me where is the positive law that estab- 
lishes slavery in Kansas? [A voice: "The bogus 
laws."] Aye, the bogus laws! And, on the same 
principle, a gang of Missouri horse-thieves could 
come into Illinois and declare horse-stealing to be 
legal [Laughter], and it would be just as legal 
as slavery is in Kansas. But by express statute, 
in the land of Washington and Jefferson, we may 



Abraham Lincoln 261 

soon be brought face to face with the discreditable 
fact of showing to the world by our acts that 
we prefer slavery to freedom — darkness to light! 
[Sensation.!] 

It is, I believe, a principle in law that when one 
party to a contract violates it so grossly as to chiefly 
destroy the object for which it is made, the other 
party may rescind it. I will ask Browning if that 
ain 't good law. [Voices : ' ' Yes ! "] Well, now if that 
be right, I go for rescinding the whole, entire Mis- 
souri Compromise and thus turning Missouri into a 
free State ; and I should like to know the difference — 
should like for any one to point out the difference — 
between our making a free State of Missouri and 
their making a slave State of Kansas. [Great ap- 
plause.] There ain't one bit of difference, except 
that our way would be a great mercy to humanity. 
But I have never said, and the Whig party has never 
said, and those who oppose the Nebraska Bill do not 
as a body say, that they have any intention of inter- 
fering with slavery in the slave States. Our plat- 
form says just the contrary. We allow slavery to 
exist in the slave States, not because slavery is 
right or good, but from the necessities of our Union. 
We grant a fugitive slave law because it is so "nom- 
inated in the bond"; because our fathers so stipu- 
lated — ^had to — and we are bound to carry out this 
agreement. But they did not agree to introduce 
slavery in regions where it did not previously exist. 
On the contrary, they said by their example and 
teachings that they did not deem it expedient — did 
not consider it ri^ht — to do so; and it is wise and 



262 The Writings of 

right to do just as they did about it. [Voices: 
"Good!"] And that it what we propose — not to in- 
terfere with slavery where it exists (we have never 
tried to do it), and to give them a reasonable and 
efficient fugitive slave law. [A voice: "No!"] I 
say YES! [Applause.] It was part of the bargain, 
and I 'm for living up to it ; but I go no further ; I 'm 
not bound to do more, and I won't agree any further. 
[Great applause.] 

We, here in Illinois, should feel especially proud of 
the provision of the Missouri Compromise excluding 
slavery from what is now Kansas; for an Illinois 
man, Jesse B. Thomas, was its father. Henry Clay, 
who is credited with the authorship of the Com- 
promise in general terms, did not even vote for that 
provision, but only advocated the ultimate admission 
by a second compromise; and Thomas was, beyond 
all controversy, the real author of the "slavery 
restriction" branch of the Compromise. To show 
the generosity of the Northern members toward the 
Southern side : on a test vote to exclude slavery from 
Missouri, ninety voted not to exclude, and eighty- 
seven to exclude, every vote from the slave States 
being ranged with the former and fourteen votes 
from the free States, of whom seven were from New 
England alone; while on a vote to exclude slavery 
from what is now Kansas, the vote was one hun- 
dred and thirty-four for, to forty-two against. The 
scheme, as a whole, was, of course, a Southern tri- 
umph. It is idle to contend otherwise, as is now 
being done by the Nebraskites ; it was so shown by 
the votes and quite as emphatically by the expres- 



Abraham Lincoln 263 

sions of representative men. Mr. Lowndes of South 
Carohna was never known to commit a political 
mistake ; his was the great judgment of that section ; 
and he declared that this measure "would restore 
tranquillity to the country — a result demanded by 
every consideration of discretion, of moderation, of 
wisdom, and of virtue." When the measure came 
before President Monroe for his approval, he put to 
each member of his cabinet this question: "Has 
Congress the constitutional power to prohibit slavery 
in a Territory?" And John C. Calhoun and William 
H. Crawford from the South, equally with John 
Quincy Adams, Benjamin Rush, and Smith Thomp- 
son from the North, alike answered, " Yes!" without 
qualification or equivocation; and this measure, of 
so great consequence to the South, was passed ; and 
Missouri was, by means of it, finally enabled to knock 
at the door of the Republic for an open passage to its 
brood of slaves. And, in spite of this. Freedom's 
share is about to be taken by violence — ^by the force 
of misrepresent at ive votes, not called for by the 
popular will. What name can I, in common decency, 
give to this wicked transaction ? [Sensation.] 

But even then the contest was not over ; for when 
the Missouri constitution came before Congress for its 
approval, it forbade any free negro or mulatto from 
entering the State. In short, our Illinois "black 
laws" were hidden away in their constitution 
[Laughter], and the controversy was thus revived. 
Then it was that Mr. Clay's talents shone out con- 
spicuously, and the controversy that shook the 
Union to its foundation was finally settled to the 



264 The WritiniJ^s of 



t>- 



satisfaction of the conservative parties on both 
sides of the Hne, though not to the extremists on 
either, and Missouri was admitted by the small 
majority of six in the lower House. How great a 
majority, do you think, would have been given had 
Kansas also been secured for slavery? [A voice: 
"A majority the other way."] "A majority the 
other way," is answered. Do you think it would 
have been safe for a Northern man to have con- 
fronted his constituents after having voted to con- 
sign both Missouri and Kansas to hopeless slavery? 
And yet this man Douglas, who misrepresents his 
constituents and who has exerted his highest talents 
in that direction, will be carried in triumph through 
the State and hailed with honor while applauding 
that act. [Three groans for ''Dug!"] And this 
shows whither we are tending. This thing of 
slavery is more powerful than its supporters — even 
than the high priests that minister at its altar. It 
debauches even our greatest men. It gathers 
strength, like a rolling snowball, by its own infamy. 
Monstrous crimes are committed in its name by 
persons collectively which they would not dare to 
commit as individuals. Its aggressions and en- 
croachments almost surpass belief. In a despot- 
ism, one might not wonder to see slavery advance 
steadily and remorselessly into new dominions ; but 
is it not wonderful, is it not even alarming, to 
see its steady advance in a land dedicated to the 
proposition that "all men are created equal"? 
[Sensation.] 

It yields nothing itself; it keeps all it has, and gets 



Abraham Lincoln 265 

all it can besides. It really came dangerously near 
securing Illinois in 1824; it did get Missouri in 1821. 
The first proposition was to admit what is now 
Arkansas and Missouri as one slave State. But the 
territory was divided and Arkansas came in, without 
serious question, as a slave State; and afterwards 
Missouri, not, as a sort of equality, jree, but also as a 
slave State. Then we had Florida and Texas; and 
now Kansas is about to be forced into the dismal 
procession. [Sensation.] And so it is wherever 
you look. We have not forgotten — it is but six 
years since — ^how dangerously near California came 
to being a slave State. Texas is a slave State, and 
four other slave States may be carved from its vast 
domain. And yet, in the year 1829, slavery was 
abolished throughout that vast region by a royal 
decree of the then sovereign of Mexico. Will you 
please tell me by what right slavery exists in Texas 
to-day? By the same right as, and no higher or 
greater than, slavery is seeking dominion in Kansas: 
by political force — peaceful, if that will suffice; by 
the torch (as in Kansas) and the bludgeon (as in the 
Senate chamber), if required. And so history 
repeats itself; and even as slavery has kept its course 
by craft, intimidation, and violence in the past, 
so it will persist, in my judgment, until met and 
dominated by the will of a people bent on its 
restriction. 

We have, this very afternoon, heard bitter de- 
nunciations of Brooks in Washington, and Titus, 
Stringfellow, Atchison, Jones, and Shannon in 
Kansas — the battle-ground of slavery. I certainly 



266 The Writings of 

am not going to advocate or shield them; but they 
and their acts are but the necessary outcome of the 
Nebraska law. We should reserve our highest cen- 
sure for the authors of the mischief, and not for the 
catspaws which they use. I believe it was Shake- 
speare who said, "Where the offence lies, there let 
the axe fall" ; and, in my opinion, this man Douglas 
and the Northern men in Congress who advocate 
* ' Nebraska " are more guilty than a thousand Joneses 
and Stringfellows, with all their murderous practices, 
can be. [Applause.] 

We have made a good beginning here to-day. As 
our Methodist friends would say, ' ' I feel it is good to 
be here." While extremists may find some fault 
with the moderation of our platform, they should 
recollect that "the battle is not always to the strong, 
nor the race to the swift." In grave emergencies, 
moderation is generally safer than radicalism; and 
as this struggle is likely to be long and earnest, we 
must not, by our action, repel any who are in sym- 
pathy with us in the main, but rather win all that 
we can to our standard. We must not belittle nor 
overlook the facts of our condition — ^that we are new 
and comparatively weak, while our enemies are 
entrenched and relatively strong. They have the 
administration and the political power; and, right 
or wrong, at present they have the numbers. Our 
friends who urge an appeal to arms with so much 
force and eloquence should recollect that the govern- 
ment is arrayed against us, and that the numbers 
are now arrayed against us as well; or, to state it 
nearer to the truth, they are not yet expressly and 



Abraham Lincoln 267 

affirmatively for us; and we should repel friends 
rather than gain them by anything savoring of rev- 
olutionary methods. As it now stands, we must ap- 
peal to the sober sense and patriotism of the people. 
We will make converts day by day; we will grow 
strong by calmness and moderation; we will grow 
strong by the violence and injustice of our adversaries. 
And, unless truth be a mockery and justice a hollow 
lie, we will be in the majority after a while, and 
then the revolution which we will accomplish will be 
none the less radical from being the result of pacific 
measures. The battle of freedom is to be fought out 
on principle. Slavery is a violation of the eternal 
right. We have temporized with it from the ne- 
cessities of our condition ; but as sure as God reigns 
and school children read, that black foul lie can 

NEVER BE CONSECRATED INTO God'S HALLOWED 

truth! [Immense applause lasting some time.] 
One of our greatest difficulties is, that men who 
know that slavery is a detestable crime and ruinous 
to the nation are compelled, by our peculiar condi- 
tion and other circumstances, to advocate it con- 
cretely, though damning it in the raw. Henry Clay 
was a brilliant example of this tendency; others of 
our purest statesmen are compelled to do so; and 
thus slavery secures actual support from those who 
detest it at heart. Yet Henry Clay perfected and 
forced through the compromise which secured to 
slavery a great State as well as a political advantage. 
Not that he hated slavery less, but tl:at he loved the 
whole Union more. As long as slavery profited by 
his great compromise, the hosts of proslavery could 



268 The Writings of 

not sufficiently cover him with praise ; but now that 
this compromise stands in their way — 

". . . they never mention him, 
His name is never heard : 
Their Hps are now forbid to speak 
That once familiar word." 

They have slaughtered one of his most cherished 
measures, and his ghost would arise to rebuke them. 
[Great applause.] 

Now, let us harmonize, my friends, and appeal to 
the moderation and patriotism of the people : to the 
sober second thought; to the awakened public con- 
science. The repeal of the sacred Missouri Com- 
promise has installed the weapons of violence: the 
bludgeon, the incendiary torch, the death-dealing 
rifle, the bristling cannon — the weapons of kingcraft, 
of the inquisition, of ignorance, of barbarism, of op- 
pression. We see its fruits in the dying bed of the 
heroic Sumner; in the ruins of the "Free State" 
hotel; in the smoking embers of the Herald of 
Freedom; in the free -State Governor of Kansas 
chained to a stake on freedom's soil like a horse- 
thief, for the crime of freedom. [Applause.] We see 
it in Christian statesmen, and Christian newspapers, 
and Christian pulpits applauding the cowardly act of a 

low bully, WHO CRAWLED UPON HIS VICTIM BEHIND 
HIS BACK AND DEALT THE DEADLY BLOW. [ScnsatioU 

and applause.] We note our political demoraliza- 
tion in the catch-words that are coming into such 
common use; on the one hand, "freedom-shriekers," 
and sometimes " freedom-screechers " [Laughter], 



Abraham Lincoln 269 

and, on the other hand, "border ruffians," and that 
fully deserved. And the significance of catch-words 
cannot pass unheeded, for they constitute a sign 
of the times. Everything in this world "jibes" 
in with everything else, and all the fruits of this 
Nebraska Bill are like the poisoned source from which 
they come. I will not say that we may not sooner or 
later be compelled to meet force by force; but the 
time has not yet come, and, if we are true to ourselves, 
may never come. Do not mistake that the ballot is 
stronger than the bullet. Therefore let the legions 
of slavery use bullets; but let us wait patiently till 
November and fire ballots at them in return; and 
by that peaceful policy I believe we shall ultimately 
win. [Applause.] 

It was by that policy that here in Illinois the 
early fathers fought the good fight and gained the 
victory. In 1824 the free men of our State, led by 
Governor Coles (who was a native of Maryland and 
President Madison's private secretary), determined 
that those beautiful groves should never re-echo the 
dirge of one who has no title to himself. By their 
resolute determination, the winds that sweep across 
our broad prairies shall never cool the parched brow, 
nor shall the unfettered streams that bring joy and 
gladness to our free soil water the tired feet, of a 
slave; but so long as those heavenly breezes and 
sparkling streams bless the land, or the groves and 
their fragrance or memory remain, the humanity to 
which they minister shall be forever free! 
[Great applause.] Palmer, Yates, Williams, Brown- 
ing, and some more in this convention came from 



270 The Writings of 

Kentucky to Illinois (instead of going to Missouri), 
not only to better their conditions, but also to get 
away from slavery. They have said so to me, and it 
is understood among us Kentuckians that we don't 
like it one bit. Now, can we, mindful of the blessings 
of liberty which the early men of Illinois left to us, 
refuse a like privilege to the free men who seek to 
plant Freedom's banner on our Western outposts? 
[" No ! " " No ! "] Should we not stand by our neigh- 
bors who seek to better their conditions in Kan- 
sas and Nebraska? ["Yes!" "Yes!"] Can we as 
Christian men, and strong and free ourselves, wield 
the sledge or hold the iron which is to manacle anew 
an already oppressed race ? [" No ! " " No ! "] " Woe 
unto them," it is written, "that decree unrighteous 
decrees and that write grievousness which they have 
prescribed." Can we afford to sin any more deeply 
against human liberty? ["No! " " No! "] 

One great trouble in the matter is, that slavery is 
an insidious and crafty power, and gains equally by 
open violence of the brutal as well as by sly manage- 
ment of the peaceful. Even after the Ordinance of 
1787, the settlers in Indiana and Illinois (it was all 
one government then) tried to get Congress to allow 
slavery temporarily, and petitions to that end were 
sent from Kaskaskia, and General Harrison, the 
Governor, urged it from Vincennes, the capital. If 
that had succeeded, good-bye to liberty here. But 
John Randolph of Virginia made a vigorous report 
against it; and although they persevered so well as 
to get three favorable reports for it, yet the United 
States Senate, with the aid of some slave States, 



Abraham Lincoln 271 

finally squelched if for good. [Applause.] And that 
is why this hall is to-day a temple for free men 
instead of a negro livery-stable. [Great applause 
and laughter.] Once let slavery get planted in a 
locality, by ever so weak or doubtful a title, and in 
ever so small numbers, and it is like the Canada 
thistle or Bermuda grass — you can't root it out. 
You yourself may detest slavery; but your neigh- 
bor has five or six slaves, and he is an excellent 
neighbor, or your son has married his daughter, and 
they beg you to help save their property, and you 
vote against your interests and principle to accom- 
modate a neighbor, hoping that your vote will be on 
the losing side. And others do the same; and in 
those ways slavery gets a sure foothold. And when 
that is done the whole mighty Union — the force of 
the nation — is committed to its support. And that 
very process is working in Kansas to-day. And you 
must recollect that the slave property is worth a 
billion of dollars ($1,000,000,000); while free-State 
men must work for sentiment alone. Then there are 
"blue lodges" — as they call them — everywhere 
doing their secret and deadly work. 

It is a very strange thing, and not solvable by any 
moral law that I know of, that if a man loses his 
horse, the whole country will turn out to help hang 
the thief; but if a man but a shade or two darker 
than I am is himself stolen, the same crowd will hang 
one who aids in restoring him to liberty. Such are 
the inconsistencies of slavery, where a horse is more 
sacred than a man; and the essence of squatter or 
popular sovereignty — I don't care how you call it — 



272 The Writings of 

is that if one man chooses to make a slave of another, 
no third man shall be allowed to object. And if you 
can do this in free Kansas, and it is allowed to stand, 
the next thing you will see is ship-loads of negroes 
from Africa at the wharf at Charleston, for one thing 
is as truly lawful as the other; and these are the 
bastard notions we have got to stamp out, else they 
will stamp us out. [Sensation and applause.] 

Two years ago, at Springfield, Judge Douglas 
avowed that Illinois came into the Union as a slave 
State, and that slavery was weeded out by the opera- 
tion of his great, patent, everlasting principle of 
"popular sovereignty." [Laughter.] Well, now, that 
argument must be answered, for it has a little 
grain of truth at the bottom. I do not mean that it 
is true in essence, as he would have us believe. It 
could not be essentially true if the Ordinance of '87 
was valid. But, in point of fact, there were some 
degraded beings called slaves in Kaskaskia and the 
other French settlements when our first State con- 
stitution was adopted; that is a fact, and I don't 
deny it. Slaves were brought here as early as 1720, 
and were kept here in spite of the Ordinance of 1787 
against it. But slavery did not thrive here. On 
the contrary, under the influence of the ordinance 
the number decreased fifty -one from iSioto 1820; 
while under the influence of squatter sovereignty, 
right across the river in Missouri, they increased seven 
thousand two hundred and eleven in the same time ; 
and slavery finally faded out in Illinois, imder the 
influence of the law of freedom, while it grew 
stronger and stronger in Missouri, under the law or 



Abraham Lincoln 273 

practice of ''popular sovereignty." In point of fact 
there were but one hundred and seventeen slaves in 
Illinois one year after its admission, or one to every 
four hundred and seventy of its population; or, to 
state it in another way, if Illinois was a slave State 
in 1820, so were New York and New Jersey much 
greater slave States from having had greater num- 
bers, slavery having been established there in very 
early times. But there is this vital difference be- 
tween all these States and the Judge's Kansas experi- 
ment : that they sought to disestablish slavery which 
had been already established, while the Judge seeks, 
so far as he can, to disestablish freedom, which had 
been established there by the Missouri Compromise. 
[Voices: "Good!"] 

The Union is undergoing a fearful strain ; but it is 
a stout old ship, and has weathered many a hard 
blow, and "the stars in their courses," aye, an in- 
visible Power, greater than the pimy efforts of men, 
will fight for us. But we ourselves must not decline 
the burden of responsibility, nor take counsel of 
unworthy passions. Whatever duty urges us to do 
or to omit must be done or omitted; and the reck- 
lessness with which our adversaries break the laws, 
or counsel their violation, should afford no example 
for us. Therefore, let us revere the Declaration of 
Independence ; let us continue to obey the Constitu- 
tion and the laws; let us keep step to the music of 
the Union. Let us draw a cordon, so to speak, 
around the slave States, and the hateful institution, 
like a reptile poisoning itself, will perish by its own 
infamy. [Applause.] 



274 The Writings of 

But we cannot be free men if this is, by our 
national choice, to be a land of slavery. Those who 
deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves ; 
and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain 
it. [Loud applause.] 

Did you ever, my friends, seriously reflect upon 
the speed with which we are tending downwards? 
Within the memory of men now present the leading 
statesman of Virginia could make genuine, red-hot 
abolitionist speeches in old Virginia! and, as I have 
said, now even in "free Kansas" it is a crime to 
declare that it is "free Kansas." The very senti- 
ments that I and others have just uttered would 
entitle us, and each of us, to the ignominy and 
seclusion of a dungeon ; and yet I suppose that, like 
Paul, we were "free bom." But if this thing is 
allowed to continue, it will be but one step further to 
impress the same rule in Illinois. [Sensation.] 

The conclusion of all is, that we must restore the 
Missouri Compromise. We must highly resolve that 
Kansas must be free! [Great applause.] We must 
reinstate the birthday promise of the Republic; we 
must reaffirm the Declaration of Indepnedence ; we 
must make good in essence as well as in form Madi- 
son's avowal that "the word slave ought not to appear 
in the Constitution" ; and we must even go further, 
and decree that only local law, and not that time- 
honored instrument, shall shelter a slaveholder. We 
must make this a land of liberty in fact, as it is in 
name. But in seeking to attain these results — so 
indispensable if the liberty which is our pride and 
boast shall endure — we will be loyal to the Constitu- 



Abraham Lincoln 275 

tion and to the "flag of our Union," and no matter 
what our grievance — even though Kansas shall come 
in as a slave State ; and no matter what theirs — even 
if we shall restore the compromise — we will say 
TO THE Southern disunionists, We won't go out 
OF THE Union, and you SHAN'T! [This was the 
climax; the audience rose to its feet en masse, ap- 
plauded, stamped, waved handkerchiefs, threw hats 
in the air, and ran riot for several minutes. The 
arch-enchanter who wrought this transformation 
looked, meanwhile, Hke the personification of politi- 
cal justice.] 

But let us, meanwhile, appeal to the sense and 
patriotism of the people, and not to their prejudices; 
let us spread the floods of enthusiasm here aroused 
all over these vast prairies, so suggestive of freedom. 
Let us commence by electing the gallant soldier 
Governor (Colonel) Bissell who stood for the honor 
of our State alike on the plains and amidst the 
chaparral of Mexico and on the floor of Congress, 
while he defied the Southern Hotspur ; and that will 
have a greater moral effect than all the border ruf- 
fians can accomplish in all their raids on Kansas. 
There is both a power and a magic in popular opinion. 
To that let us now appeal; and while, in all prob- 
abihty, no resort to force will be needed, our modera- 
tion and forbearance will stand us in good stead 
when, if ever, we must make an appeal to battle 
AND TO THE GoD OF HOSTS ! [Immense applause and 
a rush for the orator.] 



276 The Writings of 

TO W. C. WHITNEY. 

Springfield, July 9, 1856. 

Dear Whitney: — I now expect to go to Chicago 
on the 15th, and I probably shall remain there or 
thereabouts for about two weeks. 

It turned me blind when I first heard Swett was 
beaten and Lovejoy nominated; but, after much 
reflection, I really believe it is best to let it stand. 
This, of course, I wish to be confidential. 

Lamon did get your deeds. I went with him to 

the office, got them, and put them in his hands 

myself. 

Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



to WILLIAM GRIMES. 

Springfield, Illinois, July 12, 1856. 

Yours of the 29th of June was duly received. I 
did not answer it because it plagued me. This 
morning I received another from Judd and Peck, 
written by consultation with you. Now let me tell 
you why I am plagued : 

1. I can hardly spare the time. 

2. I am superstitious. I have scarcely known a 
party preceding an election to call in help from the 
neighboring States but they lost the State. Last 
fall, our friends had Wade, of Ohio, and others, in 
Maine; and they lost the State. Last spring our 
adversaries had New Hampshire full of South Caro- 
linians, and they lost the State. And so, generally, it 
seems to stir up more enemies than friends. 



Abraham Lincoln 277 

Have the enemy called in any foreign help? If 
they have a foreign champion there I should have 
no objection to drive a nail in his track. I shall 
reach Chicago on the night of the 15th, to attend to 
a little business in court. Consider the things I have 
suggested, and write me at Chicago. Especially 
write me whether Browning consents to visit you. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT GALENA, ILLINOIS, IN THE 
FREMONT CAMPAIGN, AUGUST [ I ?], 1856. 

You further charge us with being disunionists. 
If you mean that it is our aim to dissolve the Union, 
I for myself answer that it is untrue ; for those who 
act with me I answer that it is untrue. Have you 
heard us assert that as our aim? Do you really 
believe that such is our aim? Do you find it in our 
platform, our speeches, our conventions, or any- 
where? If not, withdraw the charge. 

But you may say that, though it is not our aim, 
it will be the result if we succeed, and that we 
are therefore disunionists in fact. This is a grave 
charge you make against us, and we certainly have 
a right to demand that you specify in what way we 
are to dissolve the Union. How are we to effect 
this? 

The only specification offered is volunteered by 
Mr. Fillmore in his Albany speech. His charge is 
that if we elect a President and Vice-President both 
from the free States, it will dissolve the Union. This 



278 The Writings of 

is open folly. The Constitution provides that the 
President and Vice-President of the United States 
shall be of different States, but says nothing as to 
the latitude and longitude of those States. In 1828 
Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, and John C. Calhoun, 
of South Carolina, were elected President and Vice- 
President, both from slave States; but no one 
thought of dissolving the Union then on that ac- 
count. In 1840 Harrison, of Ohio, and Tyler, of 
Virginia, were elected. In 1841 Harrison died and 
John Tyler succeeded to the Presidency, and William 
R. King, of Alabama, was elected acting Vice-Presi- 
dent by the Senate; but no one supposed that the 
Union was in danger. In fact, at the very time Mr. 
Fillmore uttered this idle charge, the state of things 
in the United States disproved it. Mr. Pierce, of 
New Hampshire, and Mr. Bright, of Indiana, both 
from free States, are President and Vice-President, 
and the Union stands and will stand. You do not 
pretend that it ought to dissolve the Union, and the 
facts show that it won't; therefore the charge may 
be dismissed without further consideration. 

No other specification is made, and the only one 
that could be made is that the restoration of 
the restriction of 1820, making the United States 
territory free territory, would dissolve the Union. 
Gentlemen, it will require a decided majority to pass 
such an act. We, the majority, being able con- 
stitutionally to do all that we purpose, would have 
no desire to dissolve the Union. Do you say that 
such restriction of slavery would be unconstitutional, 
and that some of the States would not submit to its 



Abraham Lincoln 279 

enforcement ? I grant you that an unconstitutional 
act is not a law ; but I do not ask and will not take 
your construction of the Constitution. The Supreme 
Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide 
such a question, and we will submit to its decisions; 
and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. 
Will you ? If not, who are the disunionists — you or 
we ? We, the majority, would not strive to dissolve 
the Union; and if any attempt is made, it must be 
by you, who so loudly stigmatize us as disunionists. 
But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. 
We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we 
won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army 
and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our com- 
mand, you could not do it. This government would 
be very weak indeed if a majority with a disciplined 
army and navy and a well-filled treasury could 
not preserve itself when attacked by an unarmed, 
undisciplined, unorganized minority. All this talk 
about the dissolution of the Union is humbug, no- 
thing but folly. We do not want to dissolve the 
Union; you shall not. 



TO JOHN BENNETT. 

Springfield, Aug. 4, 1856. 

Dear Sir: — ^I understand you are a Fillmore man. 
If, as between Fremont and Buchanan, you really 
prefer the election of Buchanan, then bum this 
without reading a hne further. But if you would 
like to defeat Buchanan and his gang, allow me a 



28o The Writings of 

word with you: Does any one pretend that Fill- 
more can carry the vote of this State? I have not 
heard a single man pretend so. Every vote taken 
from Fremont and given to Fillmore is just so much 
in favor of Buchanan. The Buchanan men see this; 
and hence their great anxiety in favor of the Fillmore 
movement. They know where the shoe pinches. 
They now greatly prefer having a man of your char- 
acter go for Fillmore than for Buchanan because 
they expect several to go with you, who would go 
for Fremont if you were to go directly for Buchanan. 

I think I now understand the relative strength of 
the three parties in this State as well as any one man 
does, and my opinion is that to-day Buchanan has 
alone 85,000, Fremont 78,000, and Fillmore 21,000. 
This gives B. the State by 7000 and leaves him in 
the minority of the whole 14,000. 

Fremont and Fillmore men being united on Bissell, 
as they already are, he cannot be beaten. This is 
not a long letter, but it contains the whole story. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO JESSE K. DUBOIS. 

Springfield, Aug. 19, 1856. 

Dear Dubois: — ^Your letter on the same sheet 
with Mr. Miller's is just received. I have been 
absent four days. I do not know when your court 
sits. 

Trumbull has written the committee here to have 
a set of appointments made for him commencing 



Abraham Lincoln 281 

here in Springfield, on the nth of Sept., and to 
extend throughout the south half of the State. 
When he goes to Lawrenceville, as he will, I will 
strain every nerve to be with you and him. More 
than that I cannot promise now. 

Yours as truly as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO HARRISON MALTBY. 

Confidential. 

Springfield, September 8, 1856. 

Dear Sir: — I understand you are a Fillmore man. 
Let me prove to you that every vote withheld from 
Fremont and given to Fillmore in this State actually 
lessens Fillmore's chance of being President. Sup- 
pose Buchanan gets all the slave States and Pennsyl- 
vania, and any other one State besides; then he is 
elected, no matter who gets all the rest. But sup- 
pose Fillmore gets the two slave States of Maryland 
and Kentucky; then Buchanan is not elected; 
Fillmore goes into the House of Representatives, 
and may be made President by a compromise. But 
suppose, again, Fillmore's friends throw away a few 
thousand votes on him in Indiana and Illinois ; it will 
inevitably give these States to Buchanan, which will 
more than compensate him for the loss of Maryland 
and Kentucky, will elect him, and leave Fillmore no 
chance in the House of Representatives or out of it. 

This is as plain as adding up the weight of three 
small hogs. As Mr. Fillmore has no possible chance 



282 



The Writings of 



to carry Illinois for himself, it is plainly to his interest 
to let Fremont take it, and thus keep it out of the 
hands of Buchanan. Be not deceived. Buchanan 
is the hard horse to beat in this race. Let him have 
Illinois, and nothing can beat him; and he will get 
Illinois if men persist in throwing away votes upon 
Mr. Fillmore. Does some one persuade you that Mr. 
Fillmore can carry Illinois? Nonsense! There are 
over seventy newspapers in Illinois opposing Bu- 
chanan, only three or four of which support Mr. Fill- 
more, all the rest going for Fremont. Are not these 
newspapers a fair index of the proportion of the 
votes? If not, tell me why. 

Again, of these three or four Fillmore newspapers, 
two, at least, are supported in part by the Buchanan 
men, as I understand. Do not they know where the 
shoe pinches? They know the Fillmore movement 
helps them, and therefore they help it. Do think 
these things over, and then act according to your 
judgment. 

Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO DR. R. BOAL. 

Sept. 14, 1856. 

Dr. R. Boal, Lacon, 111. 

My dear Sir: — ^Yours of the 8th inviting me to be 
with [you] at Lacon on the 30th is received. I feel 
that I owe you and our friends of Marshall a good 
deal, and I will come if I can; and if I do not get 



Abraham Lincoln 283 

there, it will be because I shall think my efforts are 
now needed farther south. 

Present my regards to Mrs. Boal, and believe [me], 
as ever, 

Your friend, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO HENRY O CONNER, MUSCATINE, IOWA. 

Springfield, Sept. 14, 1856. 

Dear Sir: — ^Yours, inviting me to attend a mass- 
meeting on the 23d inst., is received. It would be 
very pleasant to strike hands with the Fremonters of 
Iowa, who have led the van so splendidly, in this 
grand charge which we hope and believe will end in 
a most glorious victory. All thanks, all honor to 
Iowa! But Iowa is out of all danger, and it is no 
time for us, when the battle still rages, to pay 
holiday visits to Iowa. I am sure you will excuse 
me for remaining in Illinois, where much hard work 

is still to be done. 

Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT A REPUBLICAN BANQUET 
IN CHICAGO, DECEMBER lO, 1856. 

We have another annual Presidential message. 
Like a rejected lover making merry at the wedding of 
his rival, the President felicitates himself hugely 
over the late Presidential election. He considers 
the result a signal triumph of good principles and 



284 The Writings of 

good men, and a very pointed rebuke of bad ones. 
He says the people did it. He forgets that the 
"people," as he complacently calls only those who 
voted for Buchanan, are in a minority of the whole 
people by about four hundred thousand votes — 
one full tenth of all the votes. Remembering this, 
he might perceive that the "rebuke" may not be 
quite as durable as he seems to think — ^that the 
majority may not choose to remain permanently 
rebuked by that minority. 

The President thinks the great body of us Fr^- 
monters, being ardently attached to liberty, in the 
abstract, were duped by a few wicked and designing 
men. There is a slight difference of opinion on this. 
We think he, being ardently attached to the hope of 
a second term, in the concrete, was duped b}^ men 
who had liberty every way. He is the cat's-paw. 
By much dragging of chestnuts from the fire for 
others to eat, his claws are burnt off to the gristle, 
and he is thrown aside as imfit for further use. As 
the fool said of King Lear, when his daughters had 
turned him out of doors, "He 's a shelled peascod" 
["That 's a sheal'd peascod"]. 

So far as the President charges us "with a desire 
to change the domestic institutions of existing 
States," and of "doing everything in our power to 
deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral 
authority," for the whole party on belief , and for 
myself on knowledge, I pronounce the charge an 
unmixed and unmitigated falsehood. 

Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever 
can change public opinion can change the govern- 



Abraham Lincoln 285 

ment practically just so much. Public opinion, on 
any subject, always has a "central idea," from which 
all its minor thoughts radiate. That "central idea" 
in our political public opinion at the beginning 
was, and until recently has continued to be, "the 
equality of men." And although it has always sub- 
mitted patiently to whatever of inequality there 
seemed to be as matter of actual necessity, its con- 
stant working has been a steady progress toward the 
practical equality of all men. The late Presidential 
election was a struggle by one party to discard that 
central idea and to substitute for it the opposite 
idea that slavery is right in the abstract, the work- 
ings of which as a central idea may be the perpetuity 
of human slavery and its extension to all countries 
and colors. Less than a year ago the Richmond 
Enquirer, an avowed advocate of slavery, regardless 
of color, in order to favor his views, invented the 
phrase "State equality," and now the President, in 
his message, adopts the Enquirer's catch-phrase, 
telling us the people "have asserted the constitu- 
tional equality of each and all of the States of the 
Union as States." The President flatters himself 
that the new central idea is completely inaugurated ; 
and so indeed it is, so far as the mere fact of a Presi- 
dential election can inaugurate it. To us it is left 
to know that the majority of the people have not yet 
declared for it, and to hope that they never will. 
All of us who did not vote for Mr. Buchanan, taken 
together, are a majority of four hundred thousand. 
But in the late contest we were divided between Fre- 
mont and Fillmore. Can we not come together for the 



286 The Writings of 

future ? Let every one who really believes and is re- 
solved that free society is not and shall not be a failure, 
and who can conscientiously declare that in the last 
contest he has done only what he thought best — ^let 
every such one have charity to believe that every 
other one can say as much. Thus let bygones be 
bygones; let past differences as nothing be; and 
with steady eye on the real issue let us reinaugurate 
the good old "central idea" of the republic. We 
can do it. The human heart is with us ; God is with 
us. We shall again be able, not to declare that "all 
States as States are equal," nor yet that "all citizens 
as citizens are equal," but to renew the broader, 
better declaration, including both these and much 
more, that "all men are created equal." 



TO DR. R. BOAL. 

Springfield, Dec. 25, 1856. 

Dear Sir: — ^When I was at Chicago two weeks ago 
I saw Mr. Arnold, and from a remark of his I inferred 
he was thinking of the speakership, though I think 
he was not anxious about it. He seemed most 
anxious for harmony generally, and particularly 
that the contested seats from Peoria and McDonough 
might be rightly determined. Since I came home I 
had a talk with Cullom, one of our American repre- 
sentatives here, and he says he is for you for Speaker 
and also that he thinks all the Americans will be for 
you, unless it be Gorin, of Macon, of whom he cannot 
speak. If you would like to be Speaker go right up 



Abraham Lincoln 287 

and see Arnold. He is talented, a practised debater, 
and, I think, would do himself more credit on the 
floor than in the Speaker's seat. Go and see him; 
and if you think fit, show him this letter. 

Your friend as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO JOHN E. ROSETTE, 

Private. 

Springfield, III., February lo, 1857. 

Dear Sir: — ^Your note about the little paragraph 
in the Republican was received yesterday, since 
which time I have been too unwell to notice it. I 
had not supposed you wrote or approved it. The 
whole originated in mistake. You know by the con- 
versation with me that I thought the establishment 
of the paper unfortunate, but I always expected to 
throw no obstacle in its way, and to patronize it to 
the extent of taking and paying for one copy. 
When the paper was brought to my house, my wife 
said to me, "Now are you going to take another 
worthless little paper?" I said to her evasively, "I 
have not directed the paper to be left." From this, 
in my absence, she sent the message to the carrier. 

This is the whole story. 

Yours truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



speech in SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, JUNE 26, 1 85 7. 

Fellow-Citizens: — I am here to-night partly by 
the invitation of some of you, and partly by my own 



288 The Writings of 

inclination. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spoke 
here on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred 
Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech 
at the time, and have the report of it since. It was 
intended to controvert opinions which I think just, 
and to assail (politically, not personally) those men 
who, in common with me, entertain those opinions. 
For this reason I wished then, and still wish, to 
make some answer to it, which I now take the 
opportimity of doing. 

I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as 
is probable, that the people of Utah are in open 
rebellion to the United States, then Judge Douglas 
is in favor of repealing their territorial organization, 
and attaching them to the adjoining States for 
judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, 
they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; 
and I am not now prepared to admit or deny that 
the Judge's mode of coercing them is not as good as 
any. The Republicans can fall in with it without 
taking back anything they have ever said. To be 
sure, it would be a considerable backing down by 
Judge Douglas from his much-vaunted doctrine of 
self-government for the Territories; but this is only 
additional proof of what was very plain from the 
beginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceitful 
pretence for the benefit of slavery. Those who could 
not see that much in the Nebraska act itself, which 
forced governors, and secretaries, and judges on the 
people of the Territories without their choice or con- 
sent, could not be made to see, though one should 
rise from the dead. 



Abraham Lincoln 289 

But in all this it is very plain the Judge evades the 
only question the Republicans have ever pressed 
upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. That 
question the Judge well knew to be this: "If the 
people of Utah peacefully form a State constitution 
tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit 
them into the Union?" There is nothing in the 
United States Constitution or law against polygamy ; 
and why is it not a part of the Judge's "sacred right 
of self-government" for the people to have it, or 
rather to keep it, if they choose? These questions, 
so far as I know, the Judge never answers. It might 
involve the Democracy to answer them either way, 
and they go unanswered. 

As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge's 
speech on Kansas is an effort to put the free-State 
men in the wrong for not voting at the election of 
delegates to the constitutional convention. He says : 
"There is every reason to hope and believe that 
the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially 
executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhab- 
itant the free and quiet exercise of the elective 
franchise." 

It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas 
should make such a statement. He knows that, by 
the law, no one can vote who has not been registered ; 
and he knows that the free-State men place their 
refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them 
have been registered. It is possible that this is not 
true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be 
true in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, 
and borne by every mail and blown by every breeze 

VOL. II. — 19. 



290 The Writings of 

to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is 
boldly declared that the people of many whole 
counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, 
are left unregistered ; yet he does not venture to con- 
tradict the declaration, or to point out how they 
can vote without being registered; but he just slips 
along, not seeming to know there is any such question 
of fact, and complacently declares: "There is every 
reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly 
and impartially executed, so as to insure to every 
bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of 
the elective franchise." 

I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote they 
ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they 
allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not to particu- 
larly contradict, few only of the free-State men had 
a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in stay- 
ing from the polls in a body. 

By the way, since the Judge spoke, the Kansas 
election has come off. The Judge expressed his con- 
fidence that all the Democrats in Kansas would do 
their duty — including "free-State Democrats," of 
course. The returns received here as yet are very 
incomplete; but so far as they go, they indicate that 
only about one sixth of the registered voters have 
really voted; and this, too, when not more, perhaps, 
than one half of the rightful voters have been 
registered, thus showing the thing to have been 
altogether the most exquisite farce ever enacted. I 
am watching with considerable interest to ascertain 
what figure "the free-State Democrats" cut in the 
concern. Of course they voted, — all Democrats do 



Abraham Lincoln 291 

their duty, — and of course they did not vote for 
slave-State candidates. We soon shall know how 
many delegates they elected, how many candidates 
they had pledged to a free State, and how many 
votes were cast for them. 

Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there 
were no such things in Kansas as "free-State Demo- 
crats" — that they were altogether mythical, good 
only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free 
States. If there should prove to be one real living 
free-State Democrat in Kansas, I suggest that it 
might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his 
skin as an interesting specimen of that soon-to-be- 
extinct variety of the genus Democrat. 

And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That 
decision declares two propositions — first, that a 
negro cannot sue in the United States courts; and 
secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in 
the Territories. It was made by a divided court — 
dividing differently on the different points. Judge 
Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, 
and in that respect I shall follow his example, be- 
lieving I could no more improve on McLean and 
Curtis than he could on Taney. 

He denounces all who question the correctness of 
that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. 
But who resists it ? Who has, in spite of the decision, 
declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority 
of his master over him ? 

Judicial decisions have two uses — ^first, to abso- 
lutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to 
indicate to the public how other similar cases will be 



292 The Writings of 

decided when they arise. For the latter use, they 
are called "precedents" and "authorities." 

We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps 
more) in obedience to, and respect for, the judicial 
department of government. We think its decisions 
on constitutional questions, when fully settled, 
should control not only the particular cases decided, 
but the general policy of the country, subject to be 
disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution 
as provided in that instrument itself. More than 
this would be revolution. But we think the Dred 
Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that 
made it has often overruled its own decisions, and 
we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this. 
We offer no resistance to it. 

Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority 
as precedents according to circumstances. That this 
should be so accords both with common sense and 
the customary understanding of the legal profession. 

If this important decision had been made by the 
unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without 
any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with 
legal public expectation and with the steady practice 
of the departments throughout our history, and had 
been in no part based on assumed historical facts 
which are not really true ; or, if wanting in some of 
these, it had been before the court more than once, 
and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through 
a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, 
factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce 
in it as a precedent. 

But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these 



Abraham Lincoln 293 

claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it 
is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat 
it as not having yet quite established a settled 
doctrine for the country. But Judge Douglas 
considers this view awful. Hear him : 

"The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the 
Constitution and created by the authority of the 
people to determine, expound, and enforce the law. 
Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the 
highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly blow at our 
whole republican system of government — a blow 
which, if successful, would place all our rights and 
liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy, and 
violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to 
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, in a matter like the points decided in the 
Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as 
defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the 
country as a political issue, it will become a distinct 
and naked issue between the friends and enemies 
of the Constitution — the friends and the enemies of 
the supremacy of the laws." 

Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a 
national bank to be constitutional; but General 
Jackson, as President of the United States, disre- 
garded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a recharter, 
partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each 
public functionary must support the Constitution 
"as he understands it." But hear the General's 
own words. Here they are, taken from his veto 
message : 

"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank 



294 The Writings of 

that its constitutionaHty, in all its features, ought 
to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the 
decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion 
I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous 
source of authority, and should not be regarded as 
deciding questions of constitutional power, except 
where the acquiescence of the people and the States 
can be considered as well settled. So far from this 
being the case on this subject, an argument against 
the bank might be based on precedent. One Con- 
gress, in 1 79 1, decided in favor of a bank; another, 
in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 18 15, 
decided against a bank; another, in 181 6, decided 
in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, there- 
fore, the precedents drawn from that course were 
equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of 
legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against 
the bank have been probably to those in its favor as 
four to one. There is nothing in precedent, there- 
fore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to 
weigh in favor of the act before me." 

I drop the quotations merely to remark that all 
there ever was in the way of precedent up to the 
Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, 
had been against that decision. But hear General 
Jackson further: 

"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the 
whole ground of this act, it ought not to control 
the coordinate authorities of this government. The 
Congress, the executive, and the courts must, each 
for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the Consti- 
tution. Each public officer who takes an oath to 



Abraham Lincoln 295 

support the Constitution swears that he will support 
it as he understands it, and not as it is understood 
by others." 

Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas 
denounce that bank decision and applaud General 
Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting 
for him to look over his recent speech, and see how 
exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting 
Supreme Court decisions fall upon his own head. It 
will call to mind a long and fierce political war in this 
country, upon an issue which, in his own language, 
and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was 
* ' a distinct issue between the friends and the enemies 
of the Constitution," and in which war he fought in 
the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution. 

I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott 
decision was in part based on assumed historical 
facts which were not really true, and I ought not to 
leave the subject without giving some reasons for 
saying this; I therefore give an instance or two, 
which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, 
in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, 
insists at great length that negroes were no part of 
the people who made, or for whom was made, the 
Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of 
the United States. 

On the contrary. Judge Curtis, in his dissenting 
opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen States 
— ^to wit. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, 
New Jersey, and North Carolina — ^free negroes were 
voters, and in proportion to their numbers had the 
same part in making the Constitution that the white 



296 The Writings of 

people had. He shows this with so much particu- 
larity as to leave no doubt of its truth ; and as a sort 
of conclusion on that point, holds the following 
language : 

"The Constitution was ordained and established by 
the people of the United States, through the action, 
in each State, of those persons who were qualified 
by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and 
all other citizens of the State. In some of the States, 
as we have seen, colored persons were among those 
qualified by law to act on the subject. These col- 
ored persons were not only included in the body 
of 'the people of the United States' by whom the 
Constitution was ordained and established; but in 
at least five of the States they had the power to act, 
and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the 
question of its adoption." 

Again, Chief Justice Taney says: 

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of 
public opinion, in relation to that unfortunate race, 
which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened 
portions of the world at the time of the Declaration 
of Independence, and when the Constitution of the 
United States was framed and adopted." 

And again, after quoting from the Declaration, 
he says: 

" The general words above quoted would seem to 
include the whole human family, and if they were 
used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so 
understood." 

In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, 
but plainly assumes as a fact, that the public esti- 



Abraham Lincoln 297 

mate of the black man is more favorable now than it 
was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption 
is a mistake. In some trifling particulars the condi- 
tion of that race has been ameliorated; but as a 
whole, in this country, the change between then and 
now is decidedly the other way, and their ultimate 
destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last 
three or four years. In two of the five States — New 
Jersey and North Carolina — ^that then gave the free 
negro the right of voting, the right has since been 
taken away, and in a third — New York — it has been 
greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, 
so far as I know, to a single additional State, though 
the number of the States has more than doubled. In 
those days, as I understand, masters could, at their 
own pleasure, emancipate their slaves ; but since then 
such legal restraints have been made upon emancipa- 
tion as to amount almost to prohibition. In those 
days Legislatures held the unquestioned power to 
abolish slavery in their respective States, but now it 
is becoming quite fashionable for State constitutions 
to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In 
those days, by common consent, the spread of the 
black man's bondage to the new countries was pro- 
hibited, but now Congress decides that it will not 
continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court 
decides that it could not if it would. In those days 
our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by 
all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in 
making the bondage of the negro universal and eter- 
nal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed and 
hawked at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from 



298 The Writings of 

their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All 
the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against 
him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, 
philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is 
fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison- 
house; they have searched his person, and left no 
prying instrument with him. One after another they 
have closed the heavy iron doors upon him ; and now 
they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a 
hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without 
the concurrence of every key — -the keys in the hands 
of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a 
hundred different and distant places ; and they stand 
musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of 
mind and matter, can be produced to make the im- 
possibility of his escape more complete than it is. 

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the 
public estimate of the negro is more favorable now 
than it was at the origin of the government. 

Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought 
forward his famous Nebraska Bill. The country was 
at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and 
carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen 
himself superseded in a Presidential nomination by 
one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but 
at the same time standing clear of the odium of its 
imtimely agitation and its gross breach of national 
faith ; and he has seen that successful rival constitu- 
tionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but 
by the division of adversaries, being in a popular 
minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. 
He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields 



Abraham Lincoln 299 

and Richardson, poHtically speaking, successively 
tried, convicted, and executed for an offence not their 
own but his. And now he sees his own case standing 
next on the docket for trial. 

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly 
all white people at the idea of an indiscriminate 
amalgamation of the white and black races; and 
Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon 
the chances of his being able to appropriate the 
benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much 
drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that 
idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle 
through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, 
as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes 
an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition 
to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republi- 
cans insisting that the Declaration of Independence 
includes all men, black as well as white, and forth- 
with he boldly denies that it includes negroes at 
all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who 
contend it does, do so only because they want to 
vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes! 
He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. 
Now I protest against the counterfeit logic which 
concludes that, because I do not want a black 
woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a 
wife. I need not have her for either. I can just 
leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is 
not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the 
bread she earns with her own hands, without asking 
leave of any one else, she is my equal and the equal 
of all others. 



300 The Writings of 

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred 
Scott case, admits that the language of the Declara- 
tion is broad enough to include the whole human 
family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the 
authors of that instrument did not intend to include 
negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually 
place them on an equality with the whites. Now this 
grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the 
other fact that they did not at once, or ever after- 
ward, actually place all white people on an equality 
with one another. And this is the staple argument of 
both the Chief Justice and the Senator for doing this 
obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language 
of the Declaration. 

I think the authors of that notable instrument 
intended to include all men, but they did not intend 
to declare all men equal in all respects. They did 
not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, 
moral developments, or social capacity. They de- 
fined with tolerable distinctness in what respects 
they did consider all men created equal — equal with 
"certain inalienable rights, among which are life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they 
said, and this they meant. They did not mean to 
assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually 
enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about 
to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they 
had no power to confer such a boon. They meant 
simply to declare the right, so that enforcement of it 
might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. 

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free 
society, which should be familiar to all, and revered 



Abraham Lincoln 301 

by all ; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, 
and, even though never perfectly attained, con- 
stantly approximated, and thereby constantly spread- 
ing and deepening its influence and augmenting the 
happiness and value of life to all people of all colors 
ever3rwhere. The assertion that ' ' all men are created 
equal" was of no practical use in effecting our sep- 
aration from Great Britain; and it was placed in 
the Declaration not for that, but for future use. Its 
authors meant it to be — as, thank God, it is now 
proving itself — a stumbling-block to all those who 
in after times might seek to turn a free people back 
into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the 
proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they 
meant when such should reappear in this fair land 
and commence their vocation, they should find left 
for them at least one hard nut to crack. 

I have now briefly expressed my view of the mean- 
ing and object of that part of the Declaration of 
Independence which declares that "all men are 
created equal." 

Now let us hear Judge Douglas's view of the same 
subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late 
speech. Here it is: 

"No man can vindicate the character, motives, and 
conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, except upon the hypothesis that they 
referred to the white race alone, and not to the Afri- 
can, when they declared all men to have been 
created equal; that they were speaking of British 
subjects on this continent being equal to British sub- 
jects bom and residing in Great Britain; that they 



302 The Writins^s of 



^5- 



were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and 
among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted 
for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes 
of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance 
from the British crown, and dissolving their connec- 
tion with the mother country." 

My good friends, read that carefully over some 
leisure hour, and ponder well upon it; see what a 
mere wreck — mangled ruin — it makes of our once 
glorious Declaration. 

"The}^ were speaking of British subjects on this 
continent being equal to British subjects bom and 
residing in Great Britain " ! Why, according to this, 
not only negroes but white people outside of Great 
Britain and America were not spoken of in that 
instrument. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along 
with white Americans, were included, to be sure, 
but the French, Germans, and other white people of 
the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge's 
inferior races! 

I had thought the Declaration promised something 
better than the condition of British subjects; but no, 
it only meant that we should be equal to them in 
their own oppressed and unequal condition. Ac- 
cording to that, it gave no promise that, having 
kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we 
should not at once be saddled with a king and lords 
of our own. 

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the 
progressive improvement in the condition of all men 
everywhere; but no, it merely "was adopted for the 



Abraham Lincoln 303 

purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the 
civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from 
the British crown, and dissolving their connection 
with the mother country. ' ' Why, that object having 
been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration 
is of no practical use now — mere rubbish — old wad- 
ding left to rot on the battlefield after the victory 
is won. 

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the 
' ' Fourth, ' ' to-morrow week. What for ? The doings 
of that day had no reference to the present; and 
quite half of you are not even descendants of those 
who were referred to at that day. But I suppose 
you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read 
the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once 
in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with 
Judge Douglas's version. It will then run thus: 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 
British subjects who were on this continent eighty- 
one years ago were created equal to all British sub- 
jects bom and then residing in Great Britain." 

And now I appeal to all — to Democrats as well as 
others — are you really willing that the Declaration 
shall thus be frittered away? — thus left no more, at 
most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? 
— thus shorn of its vitality and practical value, and 
left without the germ or even the suggestion of the 
individual rights of man in it ? 

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the 
thought of the mixing of blood by the white and 
black races. Agreed for once — a thousand times 
agreed. There are white men enough to marry all 



304 The Writino-s of 



the white women, and black men enough to marry 
all the black women; and so let them be married. 
On this point we fully agree with the Judge, and when 
he shall show that his policy is better adapted to 
prevent amalgamation than ours, we shall drop ours 
and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in 
the United States 405,751 mulattoes. Very few of 
these are the offspring of whites and free blacks; 
nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white 
masters. A separation of the races is the only per- 
fect preventive of amalgamation; but as an imme- 
diate separation is impossible, the next best thing is 
to keep them apart where they are not already to- 
gether. If white and black people never get together 
in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. 
That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free 
colored persons may get into the free States, in any 
event ; but their number is too insignificant to amount 
to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850 there 
were in the free States 56,649 mulattoes; but for the 
most part they were not bom there — they came from 
the slave States, ready made up. In the same year 
the slave States had 348,874 mulattoes, all of home 
production. The proportion of free mulattoes to free 
blacks — the only colored classes in the free States — ■ 
is much greater in the slave than in the free States. 
It is worthy of note, too, that among the free States 
those which make the colored man the nearest equal to 
the white have proportionably the fewest mulattoes, 
the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the 
State which goes farthest toward equality between 
the races, there are just 184 mulattoes, while there 



Abraham Lincoln 305 

are in Virginia — ^how many do you think? — 79,77 S^ 
being 23,126 more than in all the free States together. 

These statistics show that slavery is the great- 
est source of amalgamation, and next to it, not the 
elevation, but the degradation of the free blacks. 
Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints 
on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human 
recognition of the negro, as tending horribly to 
amalgamation! 

The very Dred Scott case affords a strong test 
as to which party most favors amalgamation, the 
Republicans or the dear Union-saving Democracy. 
Dred Scott, his wife, and two daughters were all in- 
volved in the suit. We desired the court to have 
held that they were citizens so far at least as to en- 
title them to a hearing as to whether they were free 
or not; and then, also, that they were in fact and in 
law really free. Could we have had our way, the 
chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood 
with that of white people would have been dimin- 
ished at least to the extent that it could not have 
been without their consent. But Judge Douglas is 
delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not 
human enough to have a hearing, even if they were 
free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage 
of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of 
mulattoes in spite of themselves : the very state of 
case that produces nine tenths of all the mulattoes — 
all the mixing of blood in the nation. 

Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, 
not meaning to say or intimate that the master of 
Dred Scott and his family, or any more than a per- 



VOL. II. 20. 



3o6 The Writings of 

centage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise 
this particular power which they hold over their 
female slaves. 

I have said that the separation of the races is the 
only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no 
right to say all the members of the Republican party 
are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they 
are in favor of it. There is nothing in their plat- 
form directly on the subject. But I can say a very 
large proportion of its members are for it, and 
that the chief plank in their platform — opposition 
to the spread of slavery — is most favorable to that 
separation. 

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be 
effected by colonization; and no political party, as 
such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. 
Party operations at present only favor or retard 
colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a diffi- 
cult one; but "where there is a will there is a way," 
and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. 
Will springs from the two elements of moral sense 
and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is 
morally right, and at the same time favorable to, or 
at least not against, our interest to transfer the 
African to his native clime, and we shall find a way 
to do it, however great the task may be. The 
children of Israel, to such numbers as to include 
four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of 
Egyptian bondage in a body. 

How differently the respective courses of the 
Democratic and Republican parties incidentally 
bear on the question of forming a will — a public sen- 



Abraham Lincoln 307 

timent — for colonization, is easy to see. The Repub- 
licans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, 
that the negro is a man, that his bondage is cruelly 
wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not 
to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; 
deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his 
bondage; so far as possible crush all sympath}^ 
for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and 
disgust against him; compliment themselves as 
Union-savers for doing so; and call the indefinite 
outspreading of his bondage "a sacred right of 
self-government. ' ' 

The plainest print cannot be read through a gold 
eagle ; and it will be ever hard to find many men who 
will send a slave to Liberia, and pay his passage, 
while they can send him to a new country — Kansas, 
for instance — and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars, 
and the rise. 



TO WILLIAM GRIMES. 

Springfield, Illinois, August, 1857. 

Dear Sir: — ^Yours of the 14th is received, and I 
am much obliged for the legal information you give. 

You can scarcely be more anxious than I that the 
next election in Iowa should result in favor of the 
Republicans. I lost nearly all the working part of 
last year, giving my time to the canvass ; and I am 
altogether too poor to lose two years together. I am 
engaged in a suit in the United States Court at 
Chicago, in which the Rock Island Bridge Company 
is a party. The trial is to commence on the 8th of 



3o8 The Writings of 

September, and probably will last two or three weeks. 
During the trial it is not improbable that all hands 
may come over and take a look at the bridge, and, if 
it were possible to make it hit right, I could then 
speak at Davenport. My courts go right on without 
cessation till late in November. Write me again, 
pointing out the more striking points of difference 
between your old and new constitutions, and also 
whether Democratic and Republican party lines were 
drawn in the adoption of it, and which were for and 
which were against it. If, by possibility, I could get 
over among you it might be of some advantage to 
know these things in advance. 

Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



ARGUMENT IN THE ROCK ISLAND BRIDGE CASE. 

(From the Daily Press of Chicago, Sept. 24, 1857.) 

Hurd et al. ] United States Circuit Court, 

vs. >Hon. John McLean, Presiding 

Railroad Bridge Co. j Ji^dge. 

13th day, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 1857. 
Mr. A. Lincoln addressed the jury. He said he did 
not purpose to assail anybody, that he expected to 
grow earnest as he proceeded but not ill-natured. 
"There is some conflict of testimony in the case," he 
said, "but one quarter of such a number of witnesses 
seldom agree, and even if all were on one side some 
discrepancy might be expected. We are to try and 



Abraham Lincoln 309 

reconcile them, and to believe that they are not in- 
tentionally erroneous as long as we can." He had 
no prejudice, he said, against steamboats or steam- 
boat men nor any against St. Louis, for he supposed 
they went about this matter as other people would 
do in their situation. "St. Louis," he continued, 
"as a commercial place may desire that this bridge 
should not stand, as it is adverse to her commerce, 
diverting a portion of it from the river ; and it may 
be that she supposes that the additional cost of 
railroad transportation upon the productions of 
Iowa will force them to go to St. Louis if this bridge 
is removed. The meetings in St. Louis are con- 
nected with this case only as some witnesses are in 
it, and thus has some prejudice added color to their 
testimony." The last thing that would be pleasing 
to him, Mr. Lincoln said, would be to have one of 
these great channels, extending almost from where it 
never freezes to where it never thaws, blocked up, 
but there is a travel from east to west whose demands 
are not less important than those of the river. It is 
growing larger and larger, building up new coun- 
tries with a rapidity never before seen in the his- 
tory of the world. He alluded to the astonishing 
growth of Illinois, having grown within his memory 
to a population of a million and a half ; to Iowa and 
the other young rising communities of the Northwest. 
"This current of travel," said he, "has its rights as 
well as that of north and south. If the river had not 
the advantage in priority and legislation we could 
enter into free competition with it and we could sur- 
pass it. This particular railroad line has a great 



3IO The Writings of 

importance and the statement of its business during 
a httle less than a year shows this importance. It 
is in evidence that from September 8, 1856, to Au- 
gust 8, 1857, 12,586 freight cars and 74,179 passen- 
gers passed over this bridge. Navigation was closed 
four days short of four months last year, and during 
this time while the river was of no use this road and 
bridge were valuable. There is, too, a considerable 
portion of time when floating or thin ice makes the 
river useless while the bridge is as useful as ever. 
This shows that this bridge must be treated with re- 
spect in this court and is not to be kicked about with 
contempt. The other day Judge Wead alluded to 
the strike of the contending interest and even a dis- 
solution of the Union. The proper mode for all 
parties in this affair is to 'live and let live,' and then 
we will find a cessation of this trouble about the 
bridge. What mood were the steamboat men in 
when this bridge was burned ? Why, there was a 
shouting and ringing of bells and whistling on all the 
boats as it fell. It was a jubilee, a greater celebra- 
tion than follows an excited election. The first thing 
I will proceed to is the record of Mr. Gumey and the 
complaint of Judge Wead that the record did not 
extend back over all the time from the completion 
of the bridge. The principal part of the navigation 
after the bridge was burned passed through the span. 
When the bridge was repaired and the boats were a 
second time confined to the draw it was provided 
that this record should be kept. That is the simple 
history of that book. 

"From April 19th, 1856, to May 6th — seventeen 



Abraham Lincoln 311 

days — there were twenty accidents and all the time 
since then there have been but twenty hits, including 
seven accidents, so that the dangers of this place are 
tapering off and as the boatmen get cool the accidents 
get less. We may soon expect if this ratio is kept up 
that there will be no accidents at all. 

' ' Judge Wead said, while admitting that the floats 
went straight through, there was a difference between 
a float and a boat, but I do not remember that he 
indulged us with an argument in support of this 
statement. Is it because there is a difference in 
size ? Will not a small body and a large one float the 
same way under the same influence? True a flat- 
boat will float faster than an egg shell and the egg 
shell might be blown away by the wind, but if under 
the same influence they would go the same way. 
Logs, floats, boards, various things the witnesses say 
all show the same current. Then is not this test 
reliable? At all depths too the direction of the 
current is the same. A series of these floats would 
make a line as long as a boat and would show any 
influence upon any part and all parts of the boat. 

"I will now speak of the angular position of the 
piers. What is the amount of the angle? The 
course of the river is a curve and the pier is straight. 
If a line is produced from the upper end of the long 
pier straight with the pier to a distance of 3 50 feet, 
and a line is drawn from a point in the channel oppo- 
site this point to the head of the pier, Colonel Nason 
says they will form an angle of twenty degrees. But 
the angle if measured at the pier is seven degrees; 
that is, we would have to move the pier seven degrees 



312 The Writings of 

to make it exactly straight with the current. Would 
that make the navigation better or worse ? The wit- 
nesses of the plaintiff seem to think it was only neces- 
sary to say that the pier formed an angle with the 
current and that settled the matter. Our more 
careful and accurate witnesses say that, though they 
had been accustomed to seeing the piers placed 
straight with the current, yet they could see that 
here the current had been made straight by us in 
having made this slight angle; that the water now 
runs just right, that it is straight and cannot be im- 
proved. They think that if the pier was changed 
the eddy would be divided and the navigation 
improved. 

*T am not now going to discuss the question what 
is a material obstruction. We do not greatly differ 
about the law. The cases produced here are, I sup- 
pose, proper to be taken into consideration by the 
court in instructing a jury. Some of them I think 
are not exactly in point, but I am still willing to 
trust his honor, Judge McLean, and take his in- 
structions as law. What is reasonable skill and 
care ? This is a thing of which the jury are to judge. 
I differ from the other side when it says that they 
are bound to exercise no more care than was taken 
before the building of the bridge. If we are allowed 
by the Legislature to build the bridge which will re- 
quire them to do more than before, when a pilot 
comes along, it is imreasonable for him to dash on 
heedless of this structure which has been legally put 
there. The Afton came there on the 5th and lay at 
Rock Island until next morning. When a boat lies 



Abraham Lincoln 313 

up the pilot has a holiday, and would not any of 
these jurors have then gone around to the bridge and 
gotten acquainted with the place ? Pilot Parker has 
shown here that he does not understand the draw. I 
heard him say that the fall from the head to the foot 
of the pier was four feet ; he needs information. He 
could have gone there that day and seen there was 
no such fall. He should have discarded passion and 
the chances are that he would have had no disaster 
at all. He was bound to make himself acquainted 
with the place. 

"McCammon says that the current and the sw^ell 
coming from the long pier drove her against the long 
pier. In other words drove her toward the very pier 
from which the current came ! It is an absurdity, an 
impossibility. The only recollection I can find for 
this contradiction is in a current which White says 
strikes out from the long pier and then like a ram's 
horn turns back, and this might have acted somehow 
in this manner. 

"It is agreed by all that the plaintiff's boat was 
destroyed and that it was destroyed upon the head 
of the short pier; that she moved from the chan- 
nel where she was with her bow above the head 
of the long pier, till she struck the short one, swung 
around imder the bridge and there was crowded and 
destroyed. 

"I shall try to prove that the average velocity of 
the current through the draw with the boat in it 
should be five and a half miles an hour; that it is 
slowest at the head of the pier and swiftest at the 
foot of the pier. Their lowest estimate in evidence 



314 The Writings of 

is six miles an hour, their highest twelve miles. 
This was the testimony of men who had made no 
experiment, only conjecture. We have adopted the 
most exact means. The water runs swiftest in high 
water and we have taken the point of nine feet above 
low water. The water when the Afton was lost was 
seven feet above low water, or at least a foot lower 
than our time. Brayton and his assistants timed 
the instruments, the best instruments known in 
measuring currents. They timed them under various 
circumstances and they found the current five miles 
an hour and no more. They found that the water 
at the upper end ran slower than five miles; that 
below it was swifter than five miles, but that the 
average was five miles. Shall men who have taken 
no care, who conjecture, some of whom speak of 
twenty miles an hour, be believed against those who 
have had such a favorable and well improved oppor- 
tunity? They should not even qualify the result. 
Several men have given their opinion as to the dis- 
tance of the steamboat Carson, and I suppose if one 
should go and measure that distance you would be- 
lieve him in preference to all of them. 

"These measurements were made when the boat 
was not in the draw. It has been ascertained what 
is the area of the cross section of this stream and the 
area of the face of the piers, and the engineers say 
that the piers being put there will increase the cur- 
rent proportionally as the space is decreased. So 
with the boat in the draw. The depth of the channel 
was twenty-two feet, the width one hundred and 
sixteen feet ; multiply these and you have the square 



Abraham Lincoln 315 

feet across the water of the draw, viz.: 2552 feet. 
The Afton was 35 feet wide and drew 5 feet, making 
a fourteenth of the sum. Now, one-fourteenth of 
five miles is five-fourteenths of one mile — about one 
third of a mile — the increase of the current. We 
will call the current five and a half miles per hour. 
The next thing I will try to prove is that the plain- 
tiff's ( ?) boat had power to run six miles an hour in 
that current. It had been testified that she was a 
strong, swift boat, able to run eight miles an hour up 
stream in a current of four miles an hour, and fifteen 
miles down stream. Strike the average and you will 
find what is her average — about eleven and a half 
miles. Take the five and a half miles which is the 
speed of the current in the draw and it leaves the 
power of that boat in that draw at six miles an hour, 
528 feet per minute and 8 4-5 feet to the second. 

"Next I propose to show that there are no cross 
currents. I know their witnesses say that there are 
cross currents — that, as one witness says, there were 
three cross currents and two eddies ; so far as mere 
statement, without experiment, and mingled with 
mistakes, can go, they have proved. But can these 
men's testimony be compared with the nice, exact, 
thorough experiments of our witnesses? Can you 
believe that these floats go across the currents? It 
is inconceivable that they could not have discovered 
every possible current. How do boats find currents 
that floats cannot discover ? We assume the position 
then that those cross currents are not there. My next 
proposition is that the Afton passed between the S. B, 
Carson and the Iowa shore. That is undisputed. 



o 



1 6 The Writings of 



"Next I shall show that she struck first the short 
pier, then the long pier, then the short one again and 
there she stopped." 

Mr. Lincoln then cited the testimony of eighteen 
witnesses on this point. 

"How did the boat strike when she went in? 
Here is an endless variety of opinion. But ten of 
them say what pier she struck ; three of them testify 
that she struck first the short, then the long and then 
the short for the last time. None of the rest sub- 
stantially contradict this. I assume that these men 
have got the truth because I believe it an established 
fact. My next proposition is that after she struck 
the short and long pier and before she got back to 
the short pier the boat got right with her bow up. 
So says the pilot Parker — 'that he got her through 
until her starboard wheel passed the short pier. 
This would make her head about even with the head 
of the long pier. He says her head was as high or 
higher than the head of the long pier. Other wit- 
nesses confirmed this one. The final stroke was in 
the splash door aft the wheel. Witnesses differ, but 
the majority say that she struck thus." 

Court adjourned. 

14th day, Wednesday, Sept. 23, 1857. 

Mr. A. Lincoln resumed. He said he should con- 
clude as soon as possible. He said the colored map 
of the plaintiff which was brought in during one 
stage of the trial showed itself that the cross currents 
alleged did not exist. That the current as repre- 
sented would drive an ascending boat to the long 



Abraham Lincoln 317 

pier but not to the short pier, as they urge. He 
explained from a model of a boat where the splash 
door is, just behind the wheel. The boat struck on 
the lower shoulder of the short pier as she swimg 
around in the splash door ; then as she went on around 
she struck the point or end of the pier, where she 
rested. "Her engineers," said Mr. Lincoln, "say 
the starboard wheel then was rushing around rapidly. 
Then the boat must have struck the upper point of 
the pier so far back as not to disturb the wheel. It 
is forty feet from the stem of the Afton to the splash 
door, and thus it appears that she had but forty feet 
to go to clear the pier. How was it that the Afton 
with all her power flanked over from the channel 
to the short pier without moving one foot ahead? 
Suppose she was in the middle of the draw, her wheel 
would have been 31 feet from the short pier. The 
reason she went over thus is her starboard wheel was 
not working. I shall try to establish the fact that 
the wheel was not rimning and that after she struck 
she went ahead strong on this same wheel. Upon 
the last point the witnesses agree, that the starboard 
wheel was running after she struck, and no witnesses 
say that it was rimning while she was out in the draw 
flanking over." 

Mr. Lincoln read from the testimonies of various 
witnesses to prove that the starboard wheel was not 
working while the Afton was out in the stream. 

"Other witnesses show that the captain said 
something of the machinery of the wheel, and the in- 
ference is that he knew the wheel was not working. 
The fact is undisputed that she did not move one 



3iS The Writin2:s of 



i3- 



inch ahead while she was moving this 31 feet side- 
ways. There is evidence proving that the current 
there is only five miles an hour, and the only ex- 
planation is that her power was not all used — that 
only one wheel was working. The pilot says he 
ordered the engineers to back her up. The engineers 
differ from him and said they kept on going ahead. 
The bow was so swung that the current pressed it 
over; the pilot pressed the stem over with the 
rudder, though not so fast but that the bow gained 
on it, and only one wheel being in motion the boat 
nearly stood still so far as motion up and down is 
concerned, and thus she was thrown upon this pier. 
The Afton came into the draw after she had just 
passed the Carson, and as the Carson no doubt kept 
the true course the Afton going around her got out 
of the proper way, got across the current into the 
eddy which is west of a straight line drawn down 
from the long pier, was compelled to resort to these 
changes of wheels, which she did not do with suffi- 
cient adroitness to save her. Was it not her own 
fault that she entered wrong, so far wrong that she 
never got right ? Is the defence to blame for that ? 

"For several days we were entertained with depo- 
sitions about boats 'smelling a bar.' Why did the 
Afton then, after she had come up smelling so close to 
the long pier sheer off so strangely. When she got 
to the centre of the very nose she was smelling she 
seemed suddenly to have lost her sense of smell and 
to have flanked over to the short pier." 

Mr. Lincoln said there was no practicability in 
the project of building a timnel under the river, for 



Abraham Lincoln 319 

there "is not a tunnel that is a successful project in 
this world. A suspension bridge cannot be built so 
high but that the chimneys of the boats will grow up 
till they cannot pass. The steamboat men will take 
pains to make them grow. The cars of a railroad 
cannot without immense expense rise high enough 
to get even with a suspension bridge or go low 
enough to get through a tunnel; such expense is 
unreasonable. 

"The plaintiffs have to establish that the bridge 
is a material obstruction and that they have man- 
aged their boat with reasonable care and skill. As 
to the last point high winds have nothing to do with 
it, for it was not a windy day. They must show due 
skill and care. Difficulties going down stream will 
not do, for they were going up stream. Difficulties 
with barges in tow have nothing to do with the acci- 
dent, for they had no barge." Mr. Lincoln said he 
had much more to say, many things he could suggest 
to the jury, but he wished to close to save time. 



TO JESSE K. DUBOIS. 

Bloomington, Dec. 21, 1857. 

Dear Dubois: 

J. M. Douglas of the I. C. R. R. Co. is here and 
will carry this letter. He says they have a large 
sum (near $90,000) which they will pay into the 
treasury now, if they have an assurance that they 
shall not be sued before Jan., 1859 — otherwise not. 



320 The Writings of 

I really wish you could consent to this. Douglas 
says they cannot pay more, and I believe him. 

I do not write this as a lawyer seeking an advan- 
tage for a client; but only as a friend, only urging 
you to do what I think I would do if I were in your 
situation. I mean this as private and confidential 
only, but I feel a good deal of anxiety about it. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO JOSEPH GILLESPIE. 

Springfield, Jan. 19, 1858. 

My dear Sir: 

This morning Col. McClemand showed me a peti- 
tion for a mandamus against the Secretary of State 
to compel him to certify the apportionment act of 
last session; and he says it will be presented to the 
court to-morrow morning. We shall be allowed 
three or four days to get up a return, and I, for one, 
want the benefit of consultation with you. 

Please come right up. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO J. GILLESPIE. 

Springfield, Feb. 7, 1858. 

My dear Sir: 

Yesterday morning the court overruled the de- 
murrer to Hatche's return in the mandamus case. 
McClemand was present; said nothing about plead- 
ing over; and so I suppose the matter is ended. 



Abraham Lincoln 321 

The court gave no reason for the decision ; but Peck 
tells me confidentially that they were unanimous in 
the opinion that even if the Gov'r had signed the bill 
purposely, he had the right to scratch his name off 
so long as the bill remained in his custody and 
control. Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO EDWARD G. MINER. 

Springfield, Feb. 19, 1858. 

My dear Sir: 

Mr. G. A. Sutton is an applicant for superintendent 
of the addition of the Insane Asylum, and I imder- 
stand it partly depends on you whether he gets it. 
Mr. Sutton is my fellow- townsman and friend, and 
I therefore wish to say for him that he is a man of 
sterling integrity and as a master mechanic and 
builder not surpassed by any in our city, or any I 
have known an^^where, as far as I can judge. I hope 
you will consider me as being really interested for 
Mr. Sutton and not as writing merely to relieve 
myself of importunity. Please show this to Col. 
William Ross and let him consider it as much in- 
tended for him as for yourself. 

Your friend as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



TO W. H. LAMON, ESQ. 

Springfield, June 11, 1858. 

My DEAR Sir: — Yours of the 9th written at Joliet 
is just received. Two or three days ago I learned 



322 The Writings of 

that McLean had appointed delegates in favor of 
Love joy, and thenceforward I have considered his 
renomination a fixed fact. My opinion — if my 
opinion is of any consequence in this case, in which 
it is no business of mine to interfere — remains un- 
changed, that running an independent candidate 
against Lovejoy will not do; that it will result in 
nothing but disaster all round. In the first place, 
whosoever so runs will be beaten and will be spotted 
for life; in the second place, while the race is in 
progress, he will be under the strongest temptation 
to trade with the Democrats, and to favor the elec- 
tion of certain of their friends to the Legislature; 
thirdly, I shall be held responsible for it, and Repub- 
lican members of the Legislature who are partial 
to Lovejoy will for that purpose oppose us ; and 
lastly, it will in the end lose us the district altogether. 
There is no safe way but a convention ; and if in that 
convention, upon a common platform which all are 
willing to stand upon, one who has been known as an 
abolitionist, but who is now occupying none but 
common ground, can get the majority of the votes 
to which all look for an election, there is no safe way 
but to submit. 

As to the inclination of some Republicans to 
favor Douglas, that is one of the chances I have to 
run, and which I intend to run with patience. 

I write in the court room. Court has opened, and 
I must close. 

Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 323 

BRIEF AUTOBIOGRAPHY, JUNE [15?], 1858. 

The compiler of the Dictionary of Congress states 
that while preparing that work for publication, in 
1858, he sent to Mr. Lincoln the usual request for a 
sketch of his life, and received the following reply: 

Bom, February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Ken- 
tucky. 

Education, defective. 

Profession, a lawyer. 

Have been a captain of volunteers in Black Hawk 
war. 

Postmaster at a very small office. 

Four times a member of the Illinois Legislature 
and was a member of the lower house of Congress. 

Yours, etc., 

A. Lincoln. 



END OF VOLUME II. 



i 



I 



I 



A^^' 



^' •/', 



,<^' 



.c.'^^ 



V- V? 



0' 



^0 O. 



^OO' 






H -^1 



-^. 



,.\' 



AN- • '^/ 



v-X'' 



,0 o^ 



A- ,n 



4> 



^^" 






.A'' 









.N}-' ^;i-. 




